Misplaced Pages

Voter ID laws in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of official identification before they are permitted to register to vote, receive a ballot for an election, or to actually vote in elections in the United States.

Part of the Politics series
Voting
Balloting Ballots Absentee ballot Provisional ballot Sample ballot Candidates and Ballot measures Write-in candidate Electorate Slate Ticket Collection Ballot box Compulsory voting Early voting Electronic voting Open ballot Polling place Postal voting Precinct Vote center Voting booth Counting Popular vote Tally Voting machine
Electoral systems Plurality and majoritarian systems First-past-the-post voting Two-round system Instant-runoff voting Plurality-at-large voting General ticket Usual judgment Proportional and semi-proportional systems Single non-transferable vote Cumulative voting Binomial system Party-list Single transferable voting Spare vote Mixed-member systems Mixed-member proportional Additional member system Mixed single vote (positive vote transfer) Scorporo (negative vote transfer) Mixed ballot transferable vote Alternative Vote Plus Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority bonus system Parallel voting (Mixed member majoritarian)
Voting strategies Issue voting Fusion voting Split-ticket voting Straight-ticket voting Tactical voting Vote pairing Protest votes Abstention Donkey vote Election boycott None of the above Refused ballot Spoilt vote
Voting patterns and effects Coattail effect Voting advice application Likely voter Paradox of voting Passive electioneering Vote splitting Political apathy Voter fatigue Voter turnout Protest votes
Electoral fraud and prevention Ballot harvesting Ballot stuffing Voter intimidation Vote buying Voter suppression Voter caging Prevention Election ink Secret ballot Voter registration End-to-end verifiable voting
Politics portal
v t e

This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the United States
Federal government Constitution of the United States Laws Treaties
Legislature United States Congress House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson (R) Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R) Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D) Congressional districts (list) Non-voting members Senate President Kamala Harris (D) President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D) Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)
Executive President of the United States Joe Biden (D) Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris (D) Cabinet Federal agencies Executive Office
Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice John Roberts Thomas Alito Sotomayor Kagan Gorsuch Kavanaugh Barrett Jackson Inferior Courts of the United States Courts of appeals District courts (list) Court of International Trade Alien Terrorist Removal Court Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Other tribunals
Elections National elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Off-year elections Primary elections Presidential primary Elections by state and territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands Elections in the District of Columbia (List of elections)
Political parties Democratic Republican Third parties Libertarian Green List of political parties
Political ideologies Conservatism Black Fiscal Liberal Neo- Paleo- Social Traditionalist Trumpism Liberalism Classical Conservative Modern Neo- Third Way Progressivism Abolitionism Constitutionalism Environmentalism Feminism Libertarianism Anarchism Capitalist Individualist Conservative Paleo- Minarchist Objectivism Monarchism Nationalism Nativism Populism Protectionism Republicanism Socialism Political culture Political polarization
Federalism State and territorial government Governors Legislatures (list) Courts Local government District of Columbia government District Council Mayor Superior Court
Foreign relations Department of State Secretary of State: Antony Blinken Diplomatic missions of / in the United States Nationality law Passports Visa requirements Visa policy United States and the United Nations United Nations Security Council P5 NATO G20 G7 Russia China India Japan Canada United Kingdom European Union Latin America Arab League
United States portal Politics portal
v t e

At the federal level, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires a voter ID for all new voters in federal elections who registered by mail and who did not provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number that was matched against government records. Though state laws requiring some sort of identification at voting polls go back to 1950, no state required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition for voting before the 2006 elections. Indiana became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, which was struck down by two lower courts before being upheld in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board by the U.S. Supreme Court. As of 2021, 36 states have enacted some form of voter ID requirement.

Voter ID requirements are generally popular among Americans, with polls showing broad support across demographic groups, though they are also a divisive issue. Proponents of voter ID laws argue that they reduce electoral fraud and increase voter confidence while placing only little burden on voters. Opponents point to the lack of evidence of meaningful fraud and studies that failed to find voter ID laws increasing voter confidence or decreasing fraud. They further argue that the laws, pushed mainly by Republicans, are partisan and designed to make voting harder for demographic groups who tend to vote for Democrats, such as low-income people, people of color, younger voters and transgender people.

While research has shown mixed results, studies have generally found that voter ID laws have little if any impact on voter turnout or election outcomes. Voter ID laws are more likely to impact people of color. Research has also shown that Republican legislators in swing states, states with rapidly diversifying populations, and districts with sizable black, Latino, or immigrant populations have pushed the hardest for voter ID laws. Lawsuits have been filed against many voter ID requirements on the basis that they are discriminatory with an intent to reduce voting, with parts of voter ID laws in several states have been overturned by courts. A 2019 study and a 2021 study found voter ID laws have a negligible impact on voter fraud, which is extremely rare.

State-by-state voter ID requirements

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) provides a web page and a map with ID requirements for voting in each state. In states with strict ID laws, the voter is required to take additional action after the provisional ballot is cast to verify ID. The NCSL website describes strict states as follows:

In the "strict" states, a voter cannot cast a valid ballot without first presenting ID. Voters who are unable to show ID at the polls are given a provisional ballot. Those provisional ballots are kept separate from the regular ballots. If the voter returns to election officials within a short period of time after the election (generally a few days) and presents acceptable ID, the provisional ballot is counted. If the voter does not come back to show ID, that provisional ballot is never counted.

In states with non-strict voter ID laws, other methods of validation are allowed, which vary by state. Possible alternatives are: signing an affidavit, having a poll worker vouch for voter, having election officials verify a voter's identity after the vote is cast, or having the voter return an inquiry mailed to their reported address.

The NCSL categorizes state-level voter ID laws as follows, as of 2024:

• Photo ID required (strict): Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
• Photo ID requested (non-strict): Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.
• Non-photo ID required (strict): Arizona, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
• Non-photo ID requested (non-strict): Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
• No ID required to vote at ballot box: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania (where a 2012 strict voter ID law was struck down by the state Supreme Court), Vermont, and Washington, D.C.

History

Early history

Voter ID laws go back to 1950, when South Carolina became the first state to start requesting identification from voters at the polls. The identification document did not have to include a picture; any document with the name of the voter sufficed. In 1970, Hawaii joined in requiring ID, and Texas a year later. Florida was next in 1977, and Alaska in 1980 to become the first five states in the United States to request identification of some sort from voters at the polls.

In 1999, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore attempted to start a pilot program that required voters to show IDs at the polls. His initiative was blocked by Democrats and the NAACP, and was stopped by court order. His administration had spent and mailed $275,000 worth of free voter ID cards to residents in Arlington and Fairfax counties.

Since the late 20th century, the Republican Party has led efforts to create more stringent voter ID laws for the stated objective of preventing voter fraud. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Help America Vote Act into law, which required all first-time voters in federal elections to show photo or non-photo ID upon either registration or arrival at the polling place. It recommended states provide an expansive list of options, including without photos, such as utility bills or government checks.

In 2004, Arizona passed a law requiring voters to bring a state-issued photo ID to the polling place. Similar proposals were later discussed in various other states and were passed in some cases. In several states, a person's citizenship status is noted on their photo ID.

A 2005 report by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, concluded that concerns of both those who support and oppose strengthened voter ID laws were legitimate. It recommended voter ID requirements be enacted, to be slowly phased in over a period of five years, and accompanied by the issuance of free ID cards provided by mobile ID vans that would visit traditionally underserved communities.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

An Indiana law requiring a photo ID be shown by all voters before casting ballots went into effect on July 1, 2005. Civil rights groups in Indiana launched a lawsuit, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, that reached the Supreme Court in 2008. The Court ruled that the law was constitutional, paving the way for expanded ID laws in other states.

2011 - 2016

In 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (WI Act 23) and Ohio Governor John Kasich enacted similar voter ID laws. Texas Governor Rick Perry placed a voter ID bill as an "emergency item" in 2011, allowing legislators to rush it through the process. Jurisdiction over Texas election procedure had been given to the Department of Justice, which was required to pre-clear the law for approval. The Texas law recognized government-issued photo identification and weapons permits but not college IDs, resulting in criticism that the law was unfavorable to young voters, who trend liberal, while favorable to gun owners, who trend conservative. Rhode Island passed a voter ID law in 2011; it is the only state with a Democratic-controlled legislature to do so.

In South Carolina, Gov. Nikki Haley enacted a 2011 law requiring government-issued IDs at the polls, which included provisions for the issuance of free IDs. Haley made a one-time offer to arrange for voter ID applicants to be driven to issuing locations. The ID requirement was blocked by the Justice Department.

Wisconsin's Voter ID law in 2011 provided free IDs to people who did not have them. But in practice, state employees at the DMV were instructed to provide the IDs for free only if people specifically asked to have their fee waived. The requirement to show photo ID had been declared in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution and blocked by state and federal judges, but those decisions were overturned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and later the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weeks later, the U.S. Supreme Court again blocked the law for 2014. On March 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the ACLU, effectively upholding the 7th Circuit's decision Wisconsin's voter ID law as constitutional.

Pennsylvania's voter ID law adopted in 2012 allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). A judicial order on October 2, 2012, blocked enforcement of Pennsylvania's law until after the 2012 Presidential election. Following a trial in the summer of 2013 and a six-month delay, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law on January 17, 2014, as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters. He noted that required alternative voter IDs were available only through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs have limited hours: in nine counties they are open only one day per week, and in 13 counties they are open only two days per week. The court ruled that the Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to provide IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID". Photo IDs are not required to vote in PA.

Voters in Minnesota rejected a voter ID proposal on the 2012 general election ballot by a margin of 54–46%. It is the only such ballot defeat for a voter ID law in the country.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Some states pursuing new photo identification requirements had been required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to get federal preclearance prior to enacting new election laws. However, in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the United States Supreme Court struck down section 4(b) of the Act, which contained the formula that determined, based on historic racial discrimination, which states were required to seek preclearance. The court ruled the section unconstitutional, finding that although the provision had been rational and necessary at the time it had been enacted, changing demographics had rendered its formula inaccurate and no longer applicable. As a result, in states previously required to have preclearance, statutes requiring voter ID were able to immediately take effect .

2017

By the end of August 2017, federal courts had struck down voter ID laws in Ohio, Texas, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The court ruled that the legislature's ending of Ohio's "Golden Week" imposed a "modest burden" on the right to vote of African Americans and said that the state's justifications for the law "fail to outweigh that burden." This week had been a period of time when residents could "register to vote and cast an early ballot at the same location." In 2017, the Texas law was initially struck down at the District level on the grounds that it intended discriminate against black and Hispanic voters, but the decision was reversed by the 5th Circuit. A North Carolina law was overturned as "its provisions deliberately target African-Americans with almost surgical precision … in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls." North Carolina appealed to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the appeal, allowing the prior federal court decision to stand. Parts of Wisconsin's voter ID laws were ruled to be unconstitutional and it was advised to accept more forms of identification for the fall 2016 election cycle.

2020-present

According to a 2021 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, the states of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Montana, New Hampshire, Texas, and Wyoming all enacted harsher voter ID requirements that year. Republican members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have often introduced voter identification laws, which were then signed by Republican governors.

The proliferation of voter ID laws has prompted nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations like League of Women Voters and VoteRiders to work with and for U.S. citizens so that everyone who is eligible to cast a vote can do so.

Shelby County v. Holder

On June 25, 2013, the US Supreme Court declared, by a 5–4 decision, in Shelby County v. Holder that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. Previously, states with a history of proven voter discrimination were required to obtain preclearance from a federal court before making changes to their voting laws. Section 4 of the Act contained the formula for determining which states or political subdivisions were covered by Section 5. The majority opinion argued that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight or preclearance had not been updated to reflect current social conditions, including a decline in institutionalized discrimination and direct voter suppression. The states previously covered under section 5 were: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, as well as parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota. By ruling these restrictions to be unconstitutional, it rendered section 5 unenforceable under the current formula.

Since the Court's decision, several states passed new voter ID laws and other restrictions on registration and on voting. Within 24 hours of the Shelby County verdict, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, four states that were previously covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 began to implement or stated intentions to implement strict photo ID policies. Texas' proposed policy required a voter to show their passport, driver license or other form of photo ID before they could cast their ballot. However, this policy was found to be discriminatory to black and Hispanic voters, and so it was adapted to include the provision for voters to be able to cast a ballot if they signed an affidavit explaining why they could not obtain a form of photo ID and showed an alternate form of ID, such as a utility bill. According to a 2018 Brennan Center report, states that previously needed preclearance have purged voters off their rolls at a much higher rate than other states. Additionally, according to another Brennan Center 2018 Poll on the State of Voting, most of the states that were previously covered by Section 5, have recently enacted laws or other measures that restricted voting rights.

Edward K. Olds argues in his December 2017 Columbia Law Review Article "More than "Rarely Used": A Post-"Shelby" Judicial Standard For Section 3 Preclearance" that in the wake of the defeat of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was struck down by Shelby County v. Holder, Section 3 could take on a very similar role. Section 3 states that a federal judge can require a jurisdiction to seek pre approval for future policies if it found to be in violation of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, however, states that this is unlikely in the current political climate.

In the 2015 Phylon article "A Response to Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder: Energizing, Educating and Empowering Voters," June Gary Hopps and Dorcas Davis Bowles argue that by eliminating section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder decreased the participation of minorities and that "The participation of these groups is not only important because of the implications for ensuring civil rights, but also for developing social capital within neighborhoods, and increasing positive inter-group relations." This article also states that combined with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, there is an extreme potential for erosion to civil rights gains, that could "further alienate disenfranchised people."

In the Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy article "The Blinding Color of Race: Elections and Democracy in the Post-Shelby County Era" Sahar Aziz that "the majority in Shelby County lost sight of the objective of the VRA. This historic law was not merely about preventing the most extreme levels or forms of discrimination, but rather having in place a regime that is preventative in nature so as to ensure discrimination continues to decrease and eliminates the possibility of returning to a period of systemic disenfranchisement."

Desmond S. King and Rogers M. Smith argue in their Du Bois Review article "The Last Stand?" that although Shelby v. Holder represents a barrier to African-American political participation, efforts to disproportionately decrease the political power of minorities will long-term, fail to prevent increases in political gains for minorities. However, "they threaten to foster severe conflicts in American politics for years to come."

The practical effect of striking out section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case was that a challenge to electoral law changes in covered states could no longer be determined by a federal administrative or judicial officer, instead having to be litigated in a court of law on a case-by-case basis, a much more costly and time-consuming process.

Proof of citizenship laws

Proponents of proof of citizenship laws cite a desire to stop noncitizens from voting illegally and increase confidence in election systems. Opponents argue there are sufficient safeguards in place already to prevent noncitizen voting (which is very rare), and that requiring proof of citizenship could disenfranchise the millions of eligible voters who cannot easily access such documents.

Existing processes to prevent noncitizen voting

The federal form to register a voter requires a unique identification number such as a Social Security or driver's license number and that voters check a box attesting that they are a citizen, though documentary proof of citizenship is not required. The extent to which states verify the citizenship of voters varies. Examples include checking registrations against DMV or Social Security files, or using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. When noncitizens are added to voter rolls, it is usually by mistake, as the result of a federal law that requires states to offer people voter registration when they visit a motor vehicle office. Sometimes it also appears that more noncitizens are on voter rolls than there are because they became naturalized citizens but have not yet been back to the DMV to update their citizenship status in the DMV database.

Impact on voters

A June 2024 Brennan Center study estimates that 21.3 million citizens (9% of voters) do not have easy access to documentary proof of citizenship. For some, the documents may be in a bank or in a family member's home in another state. For others, it can be difficult for some to navigate the bureaucracy to replace a faded document.

The Brennan Center estimates that 3.8 million citizens lack access to any form of documentary proof of citizenship. According to the survey, about 4% of Independents, 2% of Democrats and 1% of Republicans lacked proof-of-citizenship documents. Often it is because the documents were lost, destroyed or stolen. Sometimes this is due to a person (usually older) being born outside of a hospital.

Legislation

National

In July 2024, the United States House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, H.R. 8281, which would mandate that Americans show proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The documents required to get registered to vote would have to meet the guidelines as the documents needed to get a Real ID, but also indicate US citizenship. Usually, a driver license does not indicate citizenship, with notable exceptions in some states near the Canadian border. The Act would not take steps to allow for social security numbers to be used, and could create issues if the birth certificate or other document does not match the name due to marriage or divorce. The bill also threatens election workers with jail time if they register a noncitizen.

According to The Guardian, "The bill could lead to people who are able to vote, such as naturalized citizens, college students and tribal voters, being removed from voter rolls." Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center for Justice argued the bill is designed to call into question the legitimacy of the 2024 election so that it would be easier to overturn if Trump lost. Philip Bump argued the proposal is based on falsehoods about voter fraud and immigrants, and provides justification for partisan voter suppression. As of July, Biden has promised to veto it. The League of Women Voters also opposes the bill. It is considered unlikely to become law due to Democratic opposition.

Kansas

In the 2018 Fish v. Kobach case, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson ruled that Kansas' proof of citizenship law was unconstitutional, in part because the state did not demonstrate any meaningful illegal noncitizen voting occurred, which would be needed in order to justify the undue burden it put on younger voters and those without a political party. According to ProPublica, Robinson "lacerated" the testimony by Hans von Spakovsky (a member of Trump's voter fraud commission) and Jesse Richman as misleading and unsupported, while also describing von Spakovsky as making "false assertions". Richard Hasen called parts of Richman's testimony "social science at its worst" and said Spakovsky having a serious credibility problem with a history of not retracting false claims. An appeals court confirmed the ruling in 2020, citing how of the 39 noncitizens that appear on the Kansas voter rolls, most of them could be due to administrative anomalies. The voter rolls also had 100 people with birth dates in the 1800s and 400 people with birth dates after their registration dates in the database. The court also said the law had an undue impact by cancelling or suspending the voter registrations of 31,089 voters.

Arizona

In the 2013 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Arizona's proof of citizenship law violated the 1993 National Voter Registration Act for federal elections.

In 2023, Jesse Richman examined Arizona state voter and DMV files along with CES data as an expert witness for the case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes challenging the law. Using DMV data, Richman said that he found 1,934 registered voters (0.04% of all registered voters) whose records indicated they were noncitizens at the time of registration or afterward, and estimated that around half a percent of noncitizens had voted nationwide. U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton wrote that she found Richman's testimony credible and that the law was not passed with discriminatory intent. Justin Levitt, a skeptic of Richman's earlier research, said that while the CES data looked more reliable than in Richman's prior work, more information was needed to assess its reliability, and that actual turnout among noncitizens could be lower than Richman estimated. Brian Schaffner "rejects the use of the CES to study noncitizens entirely". Judge Bolton upheld some provisions of the law while striking down provisions like requiring applicants to list place of birth and issued an injunction against requiring documentary proof of citizenship when using the state form to register to vote for federal elections.

In August 2024, in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota the Supreme Court allowed Arizona to temporarily enforce the law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote using the state's regsitration forms (federal forms do not require documentation), pending appeal. The ACLU and League of Women Voters submitted briefs against the law arguing it would disenfranchise voters. According to The Guardian, the law has negatively impacted tribal voters and college students. Analysis by Votebeat found a higher concentration of people living near college campuses who could only vote in federal elections due to the law being enforced for state elections.

Studies and analysis

Costs

According to a Harvard Law report, getting documentation, possible travel, and waiting time (at a DMV, for example) are significant—especially for minority group and low-income voters. The author of the study notes that the costs associated with obtaining the card far exceeds the $1.50 poll tax (equivalent to $11.00 in 2023) outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.

Costs are also borne by get out the vote nonprofits organizations and volunteers who must spend more time and money trying to help people to get and updated ID in order to be able to register to vote.

Disparate impact

Low-income people, people of color and younger voters are less likely to have ID while transgender people are less likely to have an ID that is up-to-date.

Age

As of 2023, Republican-run states had been making it harder for young people to vote by restricting their use of student IDs, among other efforts. According to a report from the University of Maryland, 18-29 year-olds were the group least likely to have the required form of photo ID.

Disability

Voter ID laws are harder on Americans with disabilities. This is in part because a higher percentage of people with a disability are less likely to have any form of photo ID, in part because of difficulties accessing DMVs and tracking down all the necessary documentation.

Gender identity

A 2020 study by the Williams Institute estimated that 260,000 Americans who have transitioned and were eligible to vote in the 2020 US elections did not have a form of ID that accurately reflect their names or gender identity. 25% of respondents reported having experienced verbal harassment from poll workers when their ID did not match their current names or identity.

Income

Some studies have also found that ID laws can disproportionately disenfranchise lower-income voters.

Political party

A 2012 analysis by Nate Silver found that voter ID laws seem to decrease turnout by between 0.8% and 2.4%, depending on how strict they are, and tend to cause a shift towards the Republican candidate of between 0.4% and 1.2%. Silver found that the statistical reasoning was flawed in a number of studies which had found small effects but had described them as not statistically significant.

A 2014 Frontline article noted that these laws are all sponsored by Republicans and passed overwhelmingly by Republican legislatures.

A 2024 survey led by researchers at the University of Maryland found that 23% of Democrats, 16% of Republicans and 31% of independents did not have a license with their current name and address.

Race

This section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In 2012, an investigation by Reuters found that voter ID laws in Georgia and Indiana had not led to lower turnout of minorities and concluded that concerns about this "are probably overstated". In a 2014 review by the Government Accountability Office of the academic literature, three studies out of five found that voter ID laws reduced minority turnout whereas two studies found no significant impact.

Charges of racial discrimination in voter ID laws are founded in the disparate impact doctrine of constitutional law, which claims that any action—intentional or unintentional—that statistically disadvantages a protected class constitutes discrimination. Disparate impact is most often discussed in the context of African Americans. The moral validity and constitutionality of this doctrine is hotly debated. This is relevant to voter ID laws because of accusations that these laws disproportionately reduce turnout among minority voters. According to an assessment of the existing research on voter ID laws by University of Pennsylvania political scientist Dan Hopkins, the research indicates that voter ID laws do disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. Research also shows that racial minorities are less likely to possess IDs.

Federal appeals courts have struck down strict voter-ID laws in Texas and North Carolina, citing intent by the legislatures to discriminate against minority voters. The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices"—then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans." The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

A 2008 study found that the strictest voter ID laws reduced voter turnout relative to the most lax form of such laws (stating one's name). The same study reported that "the stricter voter identification requirements depress turnout to a greater extent for less educated and lower income populations, for both minorities and non-minorities." A 2009 study found that 84% of white registered voters in Indiana had access to photo ID to comply with that state's ID law, as compared to 78% of black voters on the rolls there. A 2008 study found that African Americans, Hispanics, and the elderly were less likely to have a voter ID that complied with Georgia's voter ID law.

A 2014 study by the Government Accountability Office reported that voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee reduced turnout in these states by 1.9 and 2.2 percent, respectively, compared to four states that did not pass voter ID laws—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine. The study indicates that young people, black people, and newly registered voters were most likely to have their turnout reduced. But Tennessee officials suggested that the reduced turnout may have been due to a lack of compelling ballot measures in 2012, and Kansas officials dismissed the drop in black voters as a product of high random variance in a small population. Tennessee officials questioned the reproducibility of this report, given its reliance on data from Catalist, which they claimed was a progressive political group.

A 2014 study from the University of Iowa found no evidence that strict voter ID laws reduce minority turnout. A 2012 study found that, although the Georgia voter ID laws lowered overall turnout by 0.4%, there was no racial or ethnic component to the suppression effect.

Disparate impact may also be reflected in access to information about voter ID laws. A 2015 experimental study found that election officials queried about voter ID laws were slightly more likely to respond to emails from a non-Latino Anglo or European name (70.5% response rate) than a Latino name (64.8% response rate), though response accuracy was similar across those groups.

Studies have also analyzed racial differences in ID requests rates. A 2012 study in the city of Boston found strong evidence that non-white voters were more likely to be asked for ID during the 2008 election. According to exit polls, 23% of whites, 33% of Asians, 33% of blacks, and 38% of Hispanics were asked for ID, though this effect is partially attributed to black and Hispanics preferring non-peak voting hours when election officials inspected a greater portion of IDs. Precinct differences confound the data, as black and Hispanic voters tended to vote at black and Hispanic-majority precincts.

A 2010 study of the 2006 midterm election in New Mexico found that election officials asked Hispanics for ID more often than they did early voters, women, and non-Hispanics. A 2009 study of the 2006 midterm elections nationwide found that 47% of white voters reported being asked to show photo identification at the polls, compared with 54% of Hispanics and 55% of African Americans." Very few people were denied the chance to vote as a result of voter identification requests. A 2015 study found that turnout among blacks in Georgia was generally higher since the state began enforcing its strict voter ID law.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Politics "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." The results of this study were challenged in a paper by Stanford political scientist Justin Grimmer and four other political scientists. The paper says that the findings in the aforementioned study "a product of data inaccuracies, the presented evidence does not support the stated conclusion, and alternative model specifications produce highly variable results. When errors are corrected, one can recover positive, negative, or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, precluding firm conclusions." In a response, the authors of the original study dismissed the aforementioned criticisms, and stood by the findings of the original article. Columbia University statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman said that the response by the authors of the original study "did not seem convincing" and that the finding of racial discrepancies in the original study does not stand.

A 2017 report by Civis Analytics for the liberal super PAC Priorities USA purported to show that Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin the 2016 presidential election due to voter suppression brought on by Wisconsin's strict voter ID laws. Political scientists expressed serious skepticism of the report's methodology; Yale University political scientist Eitan Hersh said the report "does not meet acceptable evidence standards." A 2017 paper by University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientists Kenneth Mayer and Michael DeCrescenzo also purported to show that voter suppression swayed Wisconsin from Clinton; this paper was also rebutted by other political scientists on the basis of poor methodology.

A 2019 study in the journal Electoral Studies found that the implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina reduced overall turnout but did not have a disparate impact. 2019 studies in Political Science Quarterly and the Atlantic Economic Journal found no evidence that voter ID laws have a disproportionate influence on minorities.

A 2022 study found that Black and Latino voters were disproportionately likely to vote without ID.

A 2024 University of Maryland report evaluating the 2020 election found that participants who were Black or Hispanic were twice as likely to report not having a photo ID.

Impact on fraud

A 2019 study found voter ID laws have a negligible impact on voter fraud, which is already extremely rare.

A 2021 paper by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found that voter ID laws had no effect on fraud, actual or perceived. "Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms."

Overall turnout

This section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Studies of the effects of voter ID laws on turnout in the United States have generally found that such laws have little, if any, effect on turnout. This may be because these laws do not reduce turnout very much; it may also be because the strictest voter ID laws have the largest effect on turnout, and they have only been enacted relatively recently. Although most Americans possess a government-issued photo ID, those without ID may have trouble acquiring the proper credentials, lowering their turnout. The most comprehensive study of voter IDs, a 2017 study by Harvard political scientist Stephen Ansolabehere and Tufts political scientist Eitan Hersh, found that in Texas, 1.5% of those who showed up to vote in the 2012 election lacked the kinds of IDs that are targeted by voter ID laws, 4.5% of the total eligible population lacked them, 7.5% of black registered voters lack them. The numbers are likely higher in states with more urban areas, as fewer voters have driving licenses. A 2011 study by New York University's Brennan Center estimated that of the US population that is of voting age, 6–11% lack government-issued photo ID.

Since some legitimate voters lack the kind of IDs demanded by voter ID laws, some commentators have argued that strict voter ID laws reduce voter turnout, especially among poor, black, elderly, disabled, and minority-language voters, and voters who have changed their names. However, the results of studies assessing the effect (or lack thereof) of these laws on turnout have been inconclusive. For example, a 2012 study found that a stricter voter ID law in Georgia lowered turnout by about 0.4% in 2008 compared to 2004. A 2006 study also found that voter ID laws decreased aggregate turnout by between 3 and 4 percent. In contrast, several other studies have failed to demonstrate significant turnout reductions. A 2010 study found that 1.2% of registered voters in three states with voter ID laws (Indiana, Maryland, and Mississippi) lacked an ID that complied with the law. A 2011 study found that photo ID laws were correlated with a 1.6% decline in turnout, and non-photo ID laws were correlated with a 2.2% decline. In a 2014 review by the Government Accountability Office of the academic literature, five studies out of ten found that voter ID laws had no significant effect on overall turnout, four studies found that voter ID laws decreased overall turnout, and one study found that the laws increased overall turnout.

A 2007 report found a small increase in Democratic turnout in places with new voter ID laws.

A 2014 Rice University study reported that Texas's voter ID law decreased turnout mainly among people who incorrectly thought they did not have the type of ID needed to comply with the law. The authors of this study also suggested that an education campaign aimed at clearly communicating what types of ID are acceptable in Texas would be beneficial.

A 2016 study argued that, although no clear-cut relationship exists between strict voter ID laws and voter turnout, the disenfranchising impact of voter ID laws may be hidden by Democratic voter mobilization. Strong negative reactions to voter ID laws among Democratic constituencies could, in theory, boost Democratic turnout enough to compensate for effects of the laws themselves.

A 2017 study found that 474 people tried to vote in Virginia's 2014 Senate election, but could not do so because they lacked the proper ID to comply with the state's voter ID law. The same study found that turnout was higher in parts of the state where registered voters were less likely to have a driver's license. The authors suggested that "This unexpected relationship might be explained by a targeted Department of Elections mailing, suggesting that the initial impact of voter ID laws may hinge on efforts to notify voters likely to be affected."

A 2019 paper by Brown University economists found that the implementation of a photo ID law in Rhode Island led to a decline in turnout, registration, and voting among individuals who did not have drivers' licenses.

A 2021 paper by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found that voter ID laws had "no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation." It speculated that this was in part because of increased voter mobilization efforts that counteracted the effect.

A 2023 report published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that "voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize supporters of both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results".

International comparisons

Many nations require some form of voter identification at the polling place, but specific details of the requirement vary widely. In Spain, Greece, France, Belgium, India, and Italy, a government-issued photo ID is required to cast a ballot. Mexico has a similar system, with all registered voters receiving a photo ID upon completing the registration process. Several Western democracies do not require identification for voting, such as Denmark, Australia, and New Zealand. In Ireland and Switzerland, poll workers reserve the right to request identification but are not required to do so. In Canada, identification is required, but voters can provide any two forms of ID from a list of 45 possibilities. Canada's system is more stringent than the 17 U.S. states that do not require ID but less stringent than the 22 U.S. states with strict requirements. The strict Indiana ID system, for instance, accepts only five forms of ID: an Indiana driver's license, an Indiana ID card, a military ID, a US passport, or a student ID card from an in-state college or university.

Several developing nations have instituted voter ID laws. Many Arab nations require voters to leave a fingerprint upon casting a ballot, allowing quick detection of fraud. In 2012, the head of Libya's national election commission expressed surprise that the American system "depends so much on trust and the good faith of election officials and voters alike". The Gambia gives each voter a single marble to cast, ensuring that no one can vote multiple times.

Perception of electoral systems

Lorraine Minnite of Demos has criticized proponents of voter ID laws for shifting their arguments in favor of such laws from voter fraud to electoral integrity. In an expert report prepared for the ACLU, she argued that "Calling the problem "electoral integrity" does not change the fact that the only threat to electoral integrity addressed by photo ID laws is in-person voter fraud," and that because such fraud is extremely rare, voter ID laws are not justified to prevent this problem.

The 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, concluded that, although proven voter impersonation is minimal, a photo ID requirement would ensure election integrity and safeguard public perception of the nation's voting system.

Among certain demographics, voter ID laws lower electoral confidence. A 2016 study concluded that Democrats in states with strict ID laws have reduced faith in the electoral system. It said that negative politicization by the Democratic Party may be to blame.

Republicans living in strict photo identification states were more confident in their elections, though possibly due to similar politicization by Republican elites. Another 2015 study found that voters living in states with voter ID laws were not more confident in elections than voters who lived in states without such laws. A 2016 study found that people living in states with voter ID laws were no more confident in their elections than people in states without such laws, nor did they perceive lower rates of voter impersonation fraud. A 2017 study found similar results for both national and local election outcomes.

A 2021 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found no evidence that strict voter ID laws had any effect on fraud – actual or perceived.

Public opinion

Public opinion polls have shown broad support for voter ID laws among voters in the United States. A 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 75% of likely voters "believe voters should be required to show photo identification, such as a driver's license, before being allowed to vote." A 2012 Fox News poll produced similar results, revealing that 87% of Republicans, 74% of independent voters, and 52% of Democrats supported new voter ID laws.

More recently, a 2021 Pew Research poll showed that 93% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats favor requirements that voters show government-issued photo ID to vote. A 2021 Monmouth poll found that 56% of self-identified liberals and 84% of nonwhite voters favored photo ID requirements. A 2022 Gallup poll found that 97% of Republicans, 84% of independents and 53% of Democrats favored photo ID requirements.

Although all major political demographics support voter ID laws, a 2013 study showed significant divergence in opinion between conservative-affiliated demographics, which are staunch supporters, and liberal-affiliated demographics, which are less supportive. The study also showed that support depends on survey framing: when questions biased against voter ID laws are asked, support drops 15% compared to when questions favorable to voter ID laws are asked. A 2016 study showed that emphasizing the adverse effects of voter ID laws on eligible voters decreased popular support for such laws. Another 2016 study found that white people with high levels of implicit racism, but not explicit racism, were more supportive of voter ID laws when they were exposed to a fear-eliciting condition. A 2016 study found that partisan affiliation is a major determinant of support for voter ID laws and that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to be concerned about voter fraud. Research shows that individuals who hold hostile views towards nonwhite immigrants are most likely to believe that voter fraud is rampant.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder and others have compared the laws to a poll tax, in which southern states during the Jim Crow Era imposed voting fees, which discourage black and even some poor whites until the passage of grandfather clauses from voting.

Some studies have failed to find a correlation between states with Voter ID laws and increased confidence in the voting system.

Fraud prevention

A stated goal of Voter ID laws is to reduce voter fraud in the United States. However, between 1978-2018, no elections were overturned due to voter impersonation fraud, the only kind of fraud a voter ID law could help prevent.

The vast majority of voter ID laws in the United States target only voter impersonation. According to PolitiFact, "in-person voter fraud—the kind targeted by the ID law—remains extremely rare". The available research and evidence point to the type of fraud that would be prevented by voter ID laws as "very rare" or "extremely rare". PolitiFact finds the suggestion that "voter fraud is rampant" false, giving it its "Pants on Fire" rating. Most cases of alleged voter fraud involving dead voters have been shown to be a result of incorrect matching of voter rolls and death records, such as when someone died after they voted rather than before.

In 2016, PolitiFact noted that it was fair to say "impersonation cases can be hard to count in that they are hard to prove -- particularly when no photo ID requirement is in place and a voter can cast a ballot simply by stating the name of a registered voter."

Writing in 2009, Harvard political scientist Stephen Ansolabehere noted that despite the common belief "that fraud occurs at least somewhat often in elections … social scientists have been unable to develop unambiguous measures of the incidence of fraud, and legal cases find very little hard evidence on the matter." In a 2012 analysis, News21 of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism surveyed thousands of election officials in 50 states regarding all instances of fraud relating to elections since 2000, and concluded that in-person voter impersonation is virtually non-existent, amounting to one out of about every 15 million prospective voters. In August 2014, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt reported in the Washington Post's Wonkblog that he had identified only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation since 2000.

A 2021 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found no evidence that strict voter ID laws had any effect on fraud – actual or perceived.

Proponents of voter ID laws cite the registration of dead and out-of-state voters as a vulnerability in the electoral system as cause for concern even if there is no evidence of improper voting. A 2012 report by the Pew Center of the 2008 elections showed that more than 1.8 million deceased people remain registered to vote nationwide. The same report found 3 million voters registered in multiple states, presumably due to changes of residency. David Becker, the director of Election Initiatives for Pew, said this study's results pointed to the need to improve voter registration, rather than to evidence of voter fraud or suppression. Proponents of voter ID laws fear that motivated individuals could exploit registration irregularities to impersonate dead voters or impersonate former state residents, casting multiple fraudulent ballots. They have argued that voter fraud could go undetected without voter ID laws. Critics of such laws note that they only prevent one kind of fraud, namely voter impersonation. They say that this form of fraud is illogical, as the risks (a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 5 years in prison) far outweigh the benefits (casting one extra vote for the voter's desired candidate). Democrats have alleged that the scale of impersonation fraud has been greatly exaggerated by Republicans for political reasons.

A 2012 investigation of 207 alleged dead voters in South Carolina found only five instances unexplained by clerical errors. For instance, sometimes a son with the same name as his dead father was accidentally recorded as voting under the father's name. A study of dead voters in the 2006 Georgia midterm election concluded that only fifteen of the 66 alleged instances of dead voting were potentially fraudulent. All but four of the dead votes were cast absentee, and most of the absentee voters in question cast early ballots but died before the election, giving the impression of voter fraud. A 2013 study testing for additional cases of electoral fraud in addition to two cases that had already been documented found no additional cases of such fraud.

A 2007 report by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice concluded that voter impersonation was rarer than being struck by lightning. The author of this report, Justin Levitt, later reported in 2014 that he had identified only thirty-one credible instances of voter impersonation since 2000, involving a total of 241 ballots, out of a billion ballots cast. Also, in 2007, Lorraine Minnite released a report for Project Vote concluding that voter fraud was "extremely rare" in the United States. In 2014, a survey was published concluding that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in the 2012 U.S. general election.

Proponents of voter ID laws have pointed to a widely discredited 2014 study by Jesse Richman, Gulshan A. Chatta and David Earnest as justification. The 2014 study did not change the virtual consensus in academia that noncitizen citizen did not exist on any functional level. One reason why was a 2015 replication of the study by the managers of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the data relied on, found that Richman and Earnest's study was "almost certainly flawed" and that it was most likely that 0% of non-citizens had voted in recent American elections. The Old Dominion study also concluded that voter ID requirements would be ineffective at reducing non-citizen voting. Richman later conceded that "the response error issues … may have biased our numbers", though he stood by the study. Richman rebuked Donald Trump for claiming that millions voted illegally in 2016. In 2017, The New York Times said that the debate has moved on from Richman's study (whose claims it described as having fallen apart) to whether or not any evidence for noncitizen voting exists.

Support for voter ID laws correlates with perceived prevalence of voter fraud. Although absentee ballot fraud is considered to be more common than voter impersonation, only six of the 31 states with voter ID laws also impose similar requirements on people who mail in absentee ballots.

Politicization of voter ID issues

This section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In 2014, a study released by the Congressional Research Service concluded that, in the absence of systematic risk analyses, it is difficult to determine what points in the election process—voter registration, voting systems, polling place location and hours, poll worker training, voter identification, vote tabulation, or other steps—involve the greatest potential risks to election integrity and therefore warrant the greatest attention. Another 2014 study argued that careful voter roll maintenance is probably a more effective method for preventing voter fraud than voter ID laws.

A 2015 study found that local coverage of voter fraud during the 2012 elections was greatest in presidential swing states and states that passed strict vote ID laws prior to the 2012 election. There was no evidence that the reporting was related to the actual rate of voter fraud in each state. Based on this data, the authors concluded that "parties and campaigns sought to place voter fraud on the political agenda in strategically important states to motivate their voting base ahead of the election". Another 2015 study found a similar correlation between the enactment of voter ID laws and a state's electoral competitiveness, suggesting electioneering motives.

A 2016 study found polarization over voter ID laws was less stark in state legislatures where electoral competition was not intense. The same 2016 study found a notable relationship between the racial composition of a member's district, region, and electoral competition, and the likelihood that a state lawmaker supported a voter ID bill. The study found that "Democratic lawmakers representing substantial black district populations are more opposed to restrictive voter ID laws, whereas Republican legislators with substantial black district populations are more supportive." Southern lawmakers (particularly Democrats) were more opposed to restrictive voter ID legislation. Black legislators in the South were the least supportive of restrictive voter ID bills. A 2018 experimental study in Legislative Studies Quarterly, which sent messages from Latino and white constituents to lawmakers, found that lawmakers who supported voter ID laws were less likely to respond to messages sent by Latino constituents.

A 2017 study in American Politics Research found that the adoption of voter ID laws is most likely when control of the governor's office and state legislature switches to Republicans, and when the size of black and Latino populations in the state increases. Another 2017 study found that the different advertising strategies used to advertise Kansas' voter ID laws by different county clerks influenced the effect of these laws on turnout.

Several states controlled by Democrats maintain voter ID laws. For instance, Hawaii has required a state-issued photo ID for decades. In 2011, the Rhode Island legislature enacted a photo ID requirement, which was signed by governor Lincoln Chafee, making Rhode Island the most recent state controlled by Democrats to pass such legislation. However, both Hawaii and Rhode Island are "non-strict photo ID states", meaning that, in some circumstances, an affidavit or other legal measure can satisfy the ID requirement. In 2021, many Democrats, including Joe Manchin, Stacey Abrams and Raphael Warnock signalled a general openness to voter ID laws in the context of the For the People Act. The Washington Post observed an "evolution" by many Democrats on the issue, some of whom were no longer as strongly opposed to voter ID, and in a few cases, went on record to say they had never really been opposed to it.

Registration and election day voter ID laws by state

This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (July 2022)

See also

• Politics portal
• United States portal

Notes

1. Figures include Independents who reported leaning towards either party.

References

1. Tokaji, Daniel P. "The Help America Vote Act: An Overview". The E-Book on Election Law: An Online Reference Guide. Moritz College of Law. Retrieved March 13, 2013.
2. ^ Lee, Suevon; Smith, Sarah (March 9, 2016). "Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws". ProPublica. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
3. Greenhouse, Linda (April 29, 2008). "In a 6-to-3 Vote, Justices Uphold a Voter ID Law". The New York Times.
4. ^ "Explainer: Voter identification". electionlab.mit.edu. June 10, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2024.
5. "Voter Identification Requirements – Voter ID Laws". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved November 5, 2014.
6. Cillizza, Chris (June 25, 2021). "Analysis: Voter ID requirements are really popular. So why are they so divisive?". CNN. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
7. Rakich, Nathaniel (April 2, 2021). "Americans Oppose Many Voting Restrictions — But Not Voter ID Laws". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
8. Cottrell, David; Herron, Michael C.; Westwood, Sean J. (October 26, 2017). "An exploration of Donald Trump's allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 General Election". Electoral Studies. 51: 123–142. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2017.09.002.
9. Gilbert, Michael D. (September 5, 2014). "The Problem of Voter Fraud". Columbia Law Review. 115 (3): 739–75.Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2014-56; Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper No. 2014-15.
10. ^ Cantoni, Enrico; Pons, Vincent (2021). "Strict ID Laws Don't Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 136 (4): 2615–2660. doi:10.1093/qje/qjab019. hdl:11585/821494. ISSN 0033-5533.
11. ^ "Map: 29 million Americans live under new voter ID laws put in place since 2020". NBC News. March 12, 2024. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
12. ^ Schouten, Fredreka; Shelton, Shania (May 2, 2023). "Republican-controlled states target college students' voting power ahead of high-stakes 2024 elections". CNN. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
13. "'The Results are Clear': Voter ID Laws Hurt Black and Latino Voters". Bloomberg.com. February 5, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
14. Wines, Michael (September 25, 2021). "Wisconsin Strict ID Law Discouraged Voters, Study Finds". New York Times.
15. Lopez, German (February 21, 2019). "A new study finds voter ID laws don't reduce voter fraud — or voter turnout". Vox. Retrieved September 27, 2024. Still, the overall research so far suggests that voter ID laws don't have much, if any, effect on turnout. If true, these laws are not swinging the great majority of elections.
16. Hopkins, Dan (August 21, 2018). "What We Know About Voter ID Laws". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 27, 2024. So even if voter ID laws haven't swung election outcomes, they can deny thousands of people their right to vote — denials that fall disproportionately on black and Latino citizens. Whether voter ID laws swing elections is far from their only important consequence.
17. Skelley, Geoffrey (May 17, 2021). "How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved May 17, 2021.
18. Hicks, William; McKee, Seth; Smith, Daniel (February 21, 2016). "The Determinants of State Legislator Support for Restrictive Voter ID Laws". State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 16 (4): 411–431. doi:10.1177/1532440016630752. S2CID 27742794.
19. ^ Highton, Benjamin (2017). "Voter Identification Laws and Turnout in the United States". Annual Review of Political Science. 20: 149–167. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022822.
20. ^ Hopkins, Dan (August 21, 2018). "What We Know About Voter ID Laws". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
21. Shanton, Karen (May 2014). "Voter ID in the Courts: An introduction to legal challenges to voter ID laws" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 7, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2024.
22. ^ Ariane de Vogue, "Voting challenges head toward the Supreme Court: 4 cases to watch", CNN, July 19, 2016; accessed July 30, 2016
23. ^ Wines, Michael; Blinder, Alan (July 30, 2016). "Voter ID Laws Take a Beating in U.S. Courts". The New York Times. p. 1.
24. ^ Rober Barnes (August 1, 2016). "Federal judge blocks N. Dakota's voter-ID law, calling it unfair to Native Americans". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 2, 2016.
25. ^ Lopez, German (February 21, 2019). "A new study finds voter ID laws don't reduce voter fraud — or voter turnout". Vox. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
26. ^ "Voter ID". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved September 21, 2024.
27. "Voter ID History". National Conference of State Legislatures. October 16, 2014. Archived from the original on May 6, 2015. Retrieved November 5, 2014.
28. "Va. High Court Panel Bars Voter ID Plan". The Washington Post. October 23, 1999. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
29. "Voters in 10 Localities to Receive ID Cards". Pqasb.pqarchiver.com. October 2, 1999. Archived from the original on November 8, 2012. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
30. ^ "Flurry of Voter ID laws tied to conservative group ALEC". NBC News. May 13, 2016. Retrieved May 14, 2016.
31. Eviatar, Daphne (October 1, 2008). "Florida 2000 Redux?". The Washington Independent. American Independent Institute. Archived from the original on August 8, 2011. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
32. ^ The Commission on Federal Election Reform (September 2005). "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections" (PDF). American University. pp. 18–21. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2016. Retrieved February 7, 2016.
33. Urbina, Ian (May 12, 2008). "Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship". The New York Times. Missouri;Florida;Kansas;Oklahoma;South Carolina;Arizona;Indiana. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
34. "More states may copy Arizona's proof-of-citizenship voter requirement". Tucson Citizen. January 16, 2008. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
35. Carter, Jimmy; Baker, James (February 3, 2008). "A Clearer Picture on Voter ID". Carter Center. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
36. Balz, Dan (September 19, 2005). "Carter-Baker Panel to Call for Voting Fixes". Washington Post. Retrieved September 2, 2024.
37. Barnes, Robert (April 29, 2008). "High Court Upholds Indiana Law On Voter ID". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
38. "Supreme Court Hears Indiana Voter ID Case". NPR. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
39. Biskupic, Joan (January 6, 2008). "Voter ID case could affect election laws". USA Today. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
40. "After Six-Year Fight, Perry Signs Voter ID into Law". The Texas Observer. May 27, 2011. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
41. "Voter identification: First, show your face; Now South Carolina, too, wants voters to produce photo ID". The Economist. September 17, 2011. Archived from the original on April 6, 2023. Retrieved September 5, 2024.
42. "Providence Journal article". The Providence Journal. August 23, 2011. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
43. Smith, Gina. "Free rides to DMV offered for photo IDs". The State. Archived from the original on January 24, 2012. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
44. ^ Kinnard, Meg (December 23, 2011). "HuffPost, 23 December 2011: South Carolina Voter ID Law: Justice Department Blocks Controversial Legislation". The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
45. Venegren, Jessica; Doherty, Shawn (September 7, 2011). "Top DOT official tells staff not to mention free voter ID cards to the public — unless they ask". Capital Times. Retrieved September 21, 2014.
46. "LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN EDUCATION NETWORK, INC. AND MELANIE G. RAMEY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,† V. SCOTT WALKER, THOMAS BARLAND, GERALD C. NICHOL, MICHAEL BRENNAN, THOMAS CANE, DAVID G. DEININGER AND TIMOTHY VOCKE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, DOROTHY JANIS, JAMES JANIS, AND MATTHEW AUGUSTINE, INTERVENORS-CO-APPELLANTS" (PDF). Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
47. "High court blocks Wisconsin voter ID law". WPLG. October 9, 2014. Archived from the original on October 16, 2014. Retrieved October 10, 2014.
48. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (March 23, 2015) – "U.S. top court rejects challenge to Wisconsin voter ID law". Reuters. Retrieved March 24, 2015.
49. "Challenges loom for Pennsylvania's new voter ID law". The Patriot-News. Associated Press. March 15, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
50. ^ "The Uncertain Future of Voter ID Laws". The Atlantic. January 18, 2014. Retrieved January 18, 2014.
51. Karen Langley (October 2, 2012). "Judge blocks enforcement of portion of Pa. voter ID law". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
52. Ragsdale, Jim (November 7, 2012). "Voter ID drive rejected". Star Tribune. Retrieved March 20, 2013.
53. "Texas Voter ID Law "Will Take..."". Dallas News. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
54. Fernandez, Manny (April 10, 2017). "Federal Judge Says Texas Voter ID Law Intentionally Discriminates". The New York Times. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
55. Ura, Alexa (April 27, 2018). "Federal appellate court upholds embattled Texas voter ID law". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved August 29, 2021.
56. Liptak, Adam; Wines, Michael (May 15, 2017). "Strict North Carolina Voter ID Law Thwarted After Supreme Court Rejects Case". The New York Times. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
57. Brennan Center for Justice, October 2021
58. Heinz, Ethan (September 24, 2022). "NAACP and League of Women Voters sues over voter ID laws". ABC17NEWS. Retrieved October 24, 2022.
59. Mills, Shamane (March 2, 2016). "National Group Steps In To Help Madison Voters With ID Requirements". Wisconsin Public Radio. Retrieved October 24, 2022.
60. ^ "Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)". Retrieved December 8, 2018 – via Justia.
61. "Supreme Court Rules on Voting Rights Act: June 25, 2013." In Historic Documents of 2013, 284–98. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2014. doi:10.4135/9781483347851.n31
62. Fuller, Jaime. "How has voting changed since Shelby County v. Holder?". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
63. "ABA panel examines the effects of Shelby County v. Holder". American Bar Association. September 17, 2014. Archived from the original on December 15, 2018. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
64. "Effects of Shelby County v. Holder". Brennan Center for Justice. August 6, 2018. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
65. Fernandez, Manny (April 27, 2018). "Texas' Voter ID Law Does Not Discriminate and Can Stand, Appeals Panel Rules". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 8, 2018.
66. "Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote" (PDF).
67. Olds, Edward K. (2017). "More Than "rarely Used": A Post–"shelby" Judicial Standard for Section 3 Preclearance". Columbia Law Review. 117 (8): 2185–2223. JSTOR 44464881.
68. Hopps, June Gary; Bowles, Dorcas Davis (2015). "A Response to Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder: Energizing, Educating and Empowering Voters". Phylon. 52 (2): 1–23. JSTOR 43681951.
69. Aziz, Sahar (April 2014). "The Blinding Color of Race: Elections and Democracy after Shelby". Berkeley Journal of African American Law and Policy.
70. King, Desmond S.; Smith, Rogers M. (Spring 2016). "THE LAST STAND?". Du Bois Review. 13 (1): 25–44. doi:10.1017/S1742058X1500017X. S2CID 148230193. ProQuest 1801833400.
71. Millhiser, Ian (September 9, 2024). "Republicans threaten a government shutdown unless Congress makes it harder to vote". Vox. Retrieved September 11, 2024.
72. Morin, Rebecca. "The House passed a bill saying non-citizens can't vote. They couldn't vote anyway". USA TODAY. Retrieved September 11, 2024.
73. "House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote, fanning a GOP election-year talking point". PBS News. July 10, 2024. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
74. Sievers, Caitlin (August 22, 2024). "SCOTUS: Arizona may require proof of citizenship on state voter forms, at least for now". Arizona Mirror. Retrieved September 9, 2024. "Unlike voter ID laws, that often have not been shown to have a big effect on turnout, these documentary proof of citizenship laws matter a lot," Hasen wrote. "They stand to literally disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters for no good reason."
75. ^ Sherman, Amy (December 7, 2020). "Do states verify U.S. citizenship as a condition for voting?". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved April 21, 2024.
76. Parks, Miles (April 12, 2024). "Republicans aim to stop noncitizen voting in federal elections. It's already illegal". NPR. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
77. Sherman, Amy. "Do states verify citizenship of voters in federal elections?". @politifact. Retrieved September 17, 2024.
78. "Post-Election Audit Report: General Election 2016" (PDF). North Carolina State Board of Elections. April 21, 2017. p. Appendix Pages 1-2. Also, due to timing issues and the fact that DMV data is generally updated only when licenses are issued, DMV data alone is not reliable for this purpose either...If SAVE indicates a voter is a non-citizen, NCSBE opens a case file and attempts to contact the voter to determine citizenship status through mailings and interviews. Because of the unreliability of citizenship data, voters who appear to be non-citizens — where both data sources indicate non-citizenship status — are not removed from the rolls, absent independent confirmation that they are not citizens. In fact, approximately three-quarters of those who subsequently provide proof of U.S. citizenship continued to appear as non-citizens in the SAVE database.
79. Fessler, Pam (February 26, 2019). "Some Noncitizens Do Wind Up Registered To Vote, But Usually Not On Purpose". NPR. While claims of massive illegal voting by noncitizens have routinely been disproved, some noncitizens have ended up on the rolls, usually by accident.
80. Evans, Nick (July 12, 2024). "U.S. House Speaker cites unproven Ohio evidence in support of new proof-of-citizenship voting bill • Ohio Capital Journal". Ohio Capital Journal. Retrieved September 11, 2024.
81. ^ Levine, Sam (June 12, 2024). "Millions of US voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved September 10, 2024.
82. ^ Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge (June 2024)
83. ^ Levine, Sam (June 12, 2024). "Millions of US voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
84. ^ Wang, Hansi Lo (June 11, 2024). "1 in 10 eligible U.S. voters say they can't easily show proof of their citizenship". NPR.
85. ^ Morris, Kevin; Henry, Cora (June 11, 2024). "Millions of Americans Don't Have Documents Proving Their Citizenship Readily Available". Brennan Center For Justice. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
86. ^ Evans, Nick (July 12, 2024). "U.S. House Speaker cites unproven Ohio evidence in support of new proof-of-citizenship voting bill • Ohio Capital Journal". Ohio Capital Journal. Retrieved September 11, 2024.
87. Seariac, Hanna (August 28, 2024). "The SAVE Act explained". Deseret News. Retrieved September 11, 2024.
88. ^ Leingang, Rachel (July 10, 2024). "US House to vote on bill to require proof of citizenship to vote despite no evidence of non-citizen ballots". The Guardian. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
89. ^ Bump, Philip (July 9, 2024). "Analysis | The 'great replacement' theory, now in legislation form". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved September 13, 2024.
90. Bernal, Rafael; Schnell, Mychael (July 10, 2024). "House passes bill to ban noncitizens from voting in federal elections". The Hill. Retrieved September 11, 2024.
91. Parton, Jon (July 13, 2024). "Judge Strikes Down Kansas Voter ID Law, Sanctions Kris Kobach". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved July 20, 2024.
92. Robinson, Julie A. (June 18, 2018). "Findings of fact and conclusions of law in Fish v. Kobach, Case No. 16-2105-JAR-JPO, and Bednasek and Kobach, Case No. 15-9300-JAR-JPO (published 2018-06-18 with corrections 2018-06-19)" (PDF). US District Court for the District of Kansas. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
93. Huseman, Jessica (June 19, 2018). "How the Case for Voter Fraud Was Tested — and Utterly Failed". ProPublica. Retrieved September 8, 2024. Dismissing the testimony by Kobach's witnesses as unpersuasive, Robinson drew what she called 'the more obvious conclusion that there is no iceberg; only an icicle largely created by confusion and administrative error.'...But the judge's opinion and expert interviews reveal that Kobach effectively put the concept of mass voter fraud to the test — and the evidence crumbled.
94. Huseman, Jessica (June 19, 2018). "How the Case for Voter Fraud Was Tested — and Utterly Failed". ProPublica. Retrieved September 8, 2024. Ultimately, Robinson would lacerate von Spakovsky's testimony, much as she had Richman's. Von Spakovsky's statements, the judge wrote, were 'premised on several misleading and unsupported examples' and included 'false assertions.' As she put it, 'His generalized opinions about the rates of noncitizen registration were likewise based on misleading evidence, and largely based on his preconceived beliefs about this issue, which has led to his aggressive public advocacy of stricter proof of citizenship laws.'
95. ^ Hasen, Richard L. (2020). "Chapter 1". Election meltdown: dirty tricks, distrust, and the threat to American democracy. Yale University Press. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, . ISBN 978-0-300-24819-7.
96. ^ "Court: Kansas can't require voters to show citizenship proof". AP News. April 29, 2020. Retrieved September 10, 2024.
97. Totenberg, Nina (June 17, 2013). "Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voting Law". NPR.
98. Kessler, Glenn (March 6, 2024). "Analysis: The truth about noncitizen voting in federal elections". Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 13, 2024. Retrieved April 21, 2024. There is scattered evidence of noncitizens voting in federal elections — sometime by mistake (such as erroneously thinking they were eligible while getting a driver's license) but also with nefarious intent ... Given the paucity of evidence of noncitizen voting, many election researchers have long said that there was little to support the idea that noncitizen voting had ever affected the outcome of a major election. But that does not necessarily prove that the phenomenon does not happen.
99. Kessler, Glenn (March 6, 2024). "Analysis: The truth about noncitizen voting in federal elections". Washington Post. Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University who was skeptical of Richman's earlier research, said in an email that "while the CES data here does look to me to be more reliable than Prof. Richman's prior forays, I'd need some more information before I believed it were reliable." He also said he would be curious to know how many of the noncitizens who registered in Arizona cast ballots, as turnout could be lower than average.
100. Kasprak, Alex (May 26, 2024). "'10 to 27%' of Noncitizens in US Are Illegally Registered to Vote?". Snopes. Retrieved September 13, 2024. ' is not designed to be a sample of noncitizen adults and therefore it is not fit for the purpose of studying that subset of respondents...'There are much better ways to analyze whether noncitizens register to vote,' Schaffner told Snopes. These methods, some of which Richman used in his recent expert reports, involve looking voter rolls and other state records to identify any individuals who appear to be noncitizens. Studies like these, including the Richman expert reports, 'overwhelmingly resulted in finding very few noncitizens registered to vote,' Schaffner told Snopes.
101. "Arizona's new voting laws that require proof of citizenship are not discriminatory, a US judge rules". AP News. March 1, 2024. Retrieved September 16, 2024.
102. Wang, Hansi Lo (August 22, 2024). "Supreme Court grants GOP bid to require citizenship proof for some Arizona voters". NPR. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
103. Millhiser, Ian (August 22, 2024). "The Supreme Court decides not to disenfranchise thousands of swing state voters". Vox. Retrieved September 13, 2024.
104. "Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved September 13, 2024.
105. Levine, Sam (June 12, 2024). "Millions of US voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved September 10, 2024.
106. Levine, Sam (June 12, 2024). "Millions of US voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved September 10, 2024.
107. "Maps: Arizona's federal-only voters are concentrated on college campuses". Votebeat. December 18, 2023. Retrieved September 10, 2024.
108. Levine, Sam; Leingang, Rachel (May 17, 2024). "Trump and Johnson spread unfounded fears by urging non-citizen voting ban". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved September 10, 2024.
109. "'Free' voter IDs are costly, Harvard Law report finds – Harvard Law Today". Harvard Law Today. Retrieved January 11, 2017.
110. Johnston, Louis; Williamson, Samuel H. (2023). "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved November 30, 2023. United States Gross Domestic Product deflator figures follow the MeasuringWorth series.
111. Sobel, Richard (June 2014). "The High Cost of 'Free' Photo Voter Identification Cards" (PDF).
112. Skelley, Geoffrey (May 17, 2021). "How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
113. ^ Jillian Andres Rothschild, Samuel B. Novey, and Michael J. Hanmer."Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge" (June 2024) Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland
114. Vigdor, Neil (March 29, 2023). "Republicans Face Setbacks in Push to Tighten Voting Laws on College Campuses". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 2, 2024.
115. smith, s e (April 1, 2016). "Voting is already hard for people with disabilities. Voter ID laws make it even harder". Vox. Retrieved September 2, 2024.
116. ^ Herman, Jody L.; Brown, Taylor N.T. (August 2018). "Impact of Strict Voter ID Laws on Transgender Voters in 2018 General Election". Williams Institute. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
117. Milford, Sean. "Photo identification at the ballot: election protection or voter suppression?". Missouri Law Review. 80 (1): 297.
118. Silver, Nate (July 15, 2012). "Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved December 2, 2016.
119. Childress, Sarah (October 20, 2014). "Why Voter ID Laws Aren't Really about Fraud". FRONTLINE. Retrieved September 2, 2024.
120. Jenkins, Colleen (November 2, 2012). "Insight: Scant evidence of voter suppression, fraud in states with ID laws". Reuters. Retrieved November 18, 2012.
121. ^ "Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws". Government Accountability Office. February 27, 2015. Retrieved April 3, 2016.
122. Primus, Richard (June 2010). "The Future of Disparate Impact". Michigan Law Review. 108 (8): 1341–1387. JSTOR 20775015.
123. Newkirk, Vann (February 18, 2017). "How Voter ID Laws Discriminate". The Atlantic. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
124. Barreto, Matt A.; Nuño, Stephen; Sanchez, Gabriel R.; Walker, Hannah L. (November 9, 2018). "The Racial Implications of Voter Identification Laws in America". American Politics Research. 47 (2): 238–249. doi:10.1177/1532673x18810012. ISSN 1532-673X. S2CID 158689870.
125. Barnes, Robert; Marimow, Ann E. (July 29, 2016). "Appeals court strikes down North Carolina's voter-ID law". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
126. ^ Domonoske, Camila (July 29, 2016). "U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's Voter ID Law". NPR. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
127. Alvarez, R. Michael Michael; Bailey, Delia; Katz, Jonathan N. (2008). "The Effect of Voter Identification Laws on Turnout". California Institute of Technology Social Science Working Paper. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1084598. hdl:1721.1/96594.
128. Barreto, Matt A.; Nuño, Stephen A.; Sanchez, Gabriel R. (January 8, 2009). "The Disproportionate Impact of Voter-ID Requirements on the Electorate – New Evidence from Indiana" (PDF). PS: Political Science & Politics. 42 (1): 111. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.518.553. doi:10.1017/S1049096509090283. S2CID 12494324.
129. Hood, M.V.; Bullock, C. S. (July 1, 2008). "Worth a Thousand Words?: An Analysis of Georgia's Voter Identification Statute". American Politics Research. 36 (4): 555–79. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.594.7618. doi:10.1177/1532673X08316608. S2CID 144237016.
130. Bump, Philip (October 9, 2014). "Voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee dropped 2012 turnout by over 100,000 votes". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 7, 2016.
131. Rocha, Rene R.; Matsubayashi, Tetsuya (September 1, 2014). "The Politics of Race and Voter ID Laws in the States The Return of Jim Crow?". Political Research Quarterly. 67 (3): 666–79. doi:10.1177/1065912913514854. ISSN 1065-9129. S2CID 2130153.
132. ^ Hood, M. V.; Bullock, C. S. (October 15, 2012). "Much Ado About Nothing? An Empirical Assessment of the Georgia Voter Identification Statute". State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 12 (4): 394–414. doi:10.1177/1532440012452279. S2CID 154528911.
133. White, Ariel R.; Nathan, Noah L.; Faller, Julie K. (February 1, 2015). "What Do I Need to Vote? Bureaucratic Discretion and Discrimination by Local Election Officials". American Political Science Review. 109 (1): 129–42. doi:10.1017/S0003055414000562. ISSN 1537-5943. S2CID 145471717.
134. Cobb, Rachael V.; Greiner; James, D.; Quinn, Kevin M. (June 14, 2010). "Can Voter ID Laws Be Administered in a Race-Neutral Manner? Evidence from the City of Boston in 2008". Quarterly Journal of Political Science. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. SSRN 1625041.
135. Atkeson, Lonna Rae; Bryant, Lisa Ann; Hall, Thad E.; Saunders, Kyle; Alvarez, Michael (March 1, 2010). "A new barrier to participation: Heterogeneous application of voter identification policies". Electoral Studies. 29 (1): 66–73. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2009.08.001.
136. ^ Ansolabehere, Stephen (January 1, 2009). "Effects of Identification Requirements on Voting: Evidence from the Experiences of Voters on Election Day". PS: Political Science & Politics. 42 (1): 127–130. doi:10.1017/S1049096509090313. ISSN 1537-5935. S2CID 15315808.
137. Gillespie, June Andra (2015). "Voter Identification and Black Voter Turnout An Examination of Black Voter Turnout Patterns in Georgia, 2000–2014". Phylon. 52 (2): 43–67. JSTOR 43681953.
138. Hajnal, Zoltan; Lajevardi, Nazita; Nielson, Lindsay (January 5, 2017). "Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes". The Journal of Politics. 79 (2): 363–379. doi:10.1086/688343. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 20943777.
139. ^ Grimmer, Justin; Hersh, Eitan; Meredith, Marc; Mummolo, Jonathan; Nall, Clayton (April 18, 2018). "Obstacles to Estimating Voter ID Laws' Effect on Turnout". The Journal of Politics. 80 (3): 1045–1051. doi:10.1086/696618. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 158764888.
140. Hajnal, Zoltan; Kuk, John; Lajevardi, Nazita (April 18, 2018). "We All Agree: Strict Voter ID Laws Disproportionately Burden Minorities". The Journal of Politics. 80 (3): 1052–1059. doi:10.1086/696617. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 158480092.
141. Gelman, Andrew (June 11, 2018). "A new controversy erupts over whether voter identification laws suppress minority turnout". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 11, 2018.
142. ^ Kertscher, Tom (May 24, 2017). "Did first-time use of photo ID cause 200,000 drop in Wisconsin voter turnout in presidential race?". PolitiFact. Retrieved December 20, 2017.
143. Koerth-Baker, Maggie (December 19, 2017). "Politics Moves Fast. Peer Review Moves Slow. What's A Political Scientist To Do?". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved December 20, 2017.
144. Hood, M. V.; Buchanan, Scott E. (April 2, 2019). "Palmetto Postmortem: Examining the Effects of the South Carolina Voter Identification Statute". Political Research Quarterly. 73 (2): 492–505. doi:10.1177/1065912919837663. ISSN 1065-9129. S2CID 159341383.
145. "Political Science Quarterly: Spring 2019: Voter ID Laws: The Disenfranchisement of Minority Voters?". www.psqonline.org. Retrieved June 3, 2019.
146. Heller, Lauren R.; Miller, Jocelyne; Stephenson, E. Frank (June 1, 2019). "Voter ID Laws and Voter Turnout". Atlantic Economic Journal. 47 (2): 147–157. doi:10.1007/s11293-019-09623-8. ISSN 1573-9678. S2CID 189875682.
147. Fraga, Bernard L.; Miller, Michael G. (2022). "Who Do Voter ID Laws Keep from Voting?". The Journal of Politics. 84 (2): 1091–1105. doi:10.1086/716282. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 238773001.
148. Muhlhausen, David B.; Weber Sikich, Keri (September 10, 2007). "New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation.
149. ^ "A Dead-Simple Algorithm Reveals the True Toll of Voter ID Laws". Wired. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
150. ^ Ansolabehere, Stephen; Hersh, Eitan D. (January 1, 2017). "ADGN: An Algorithm for Record Linkage Using Address, Date of Birth, Gender, and Name". Statistics and Public Policy. 4 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1080/2330443X.2017.1389620.
151. Weiser, Wendy; et al. (September 8, 2011). "Citizens Without Proof Stands Strong". Brennan Center. Archived from the original on October 23, 2012. Retrieved October 15, 2012.
152. Sobel, Richard; Smith, Robert Ellis (January 1, 2009). "Voter-ID Laws Discourage Participation, Particularly among Minorities, and Trigger a Constitutional Remedy in Lost Representation". PS: Political Science & Politics. 42 (1): 107–10. doi:10.1017/S1049096509090271. ISSN 1537-5935. S2CID 155018528.
153. Atkeson, Lonna Rae; Kerevel, Yann P.; Alvarez, R. Michael; Hall, Thad E. (October 2014). "Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion" (PDF). The Journal of Politics. 76 (4): 944–57. doi:10.1017/S0022381614000528.
154. Vercellotti, Timothy (2006). "Protecting The Franchise, or Restricting It? The Effects of Voter Identification Requirements on Turnout" (PDF). American Political Science Association Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2016.
155. Mycoff, Jason D.; Wagner, Michael W.; Wilson, David C. (January 1, 2009). "The Empirical Effects of Voter-ID Laws: Present or Absent?". PS: Political Science & Politics. 42 (1): 121–26. doi:10.1017/S1049096509090301. ISSN 1537-5935. S2CID 54631.
156. Pastor, R. A.; Santos, R.; Prevost, A.; Stoilov, V. (September 16, 2009). "Voting and ID Requirements: A Survey of Registered Voters in Three States". The American Review of Public Administration. 40 (4): 461–81. doi:10.1177/0275074009342892. S2CID 153640870.
157. Olver, Christopher (September 28, 2011). "ID at the polls: Assessing the impact of recent state voter ID laws on voter turnout". Journalist's Resource. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
158. Milyo, Jeffrey (December 2007). "The Effects of Photographic Identification on Voter Turnout in Indiana: A County-Level Analysis" (PDF). Institute of Public Policy at the University of Missouri. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 2, 2016.
159. Bill, Hobby; Jones, Mark P.; Jim, Granato; Renée, Cross; Cong, Huang; David, Llanos; Chris, Mainka; Kwok-Wai, Wan; Ching-Hsing, Wang (2015). "The Texas Voter ID Law and the 2014 Election: A Study of Texas's 23rd Congressional District". Rice Digital Scholarship Archive. hdl:1911/92679.
160. ^ Valentino, Nicholas A.; Neuner, Fabian G. (February 1, 2016). "Why the Sky Didn't Fall: Mobilizing Anger in Reaction to Voter ID Laws". Political Psychology. 38 (2): 331–350. doi:10.1111/pops.12332. hdl:2027.42/136349. ISSN 1467-9221.
161. Hopkins, Daniel J.; Meredith, Marc; Morse, Michael; Smith, Sarah; Yoder, Jesse (March 2017). "Voting But for the Law: Evidence from Virginia on Photo Identification Requirements". Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 14 (1): 79–128. doi:10.1111/jels.12142. S2CID 2009591.
162. Esposito, Francesco Maria; Focanti, Diego; Hastings, Justine S (2019). "Effects of Photo ID Laws on Registration and Turnout: Evidence from Rhode Island". National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper Series. doi:10.3386/w25503. S2CID 35326396.
163. Harden, Jeffrey J.; Campos, Alejandra (February 14, 2023). "Brief report: Who benefits from voter identification laws?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 120 (7) e2217323120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2217323120. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9963896. PMID 36745795.
164. ^ Schaffer, Frederic Charles; Wang, Tova Andrea (2009). "Is Everyone Else Doing It? Indiana's Voter Identification Law in International Perspective" (PDF). Harvard Law and Policy Review. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
165. "Voting at a polling place". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
166. ^ Grant, Stan (November 6, 2012). "The Cable: Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system". Foreign Policy (Opinion). Retrieved February 15, 2016.
167. "Expert Report of Lorraine C. Minnite" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 9, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
168. ^ Bowler, Shaun; Donovan, Todd (January 11, 2016). "A Partisan Model of Electoral Reform Voter Identification Laws and Confidence in State Elections". State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 16 (3): 340–361. doi:10.1177/1532440015624102. ISSN 1532-4400. S2CID 156332614.
169. Bowler, Shaun; Brunell, Thomas; Donovan, Todd; Gronke, Paul (June 2015). "Election administration and perceptions of fair elections". Electoral Studies. 38: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.01.004.
170. Stewart, Charles; Ansolabehere, Stephen; Persily, Nathaniel (2016). "Revisiting Public Opinion on Voter Identification and Voter Fraud in an Era of Increasing Partisan Polarization". Stanford Law Review. 68 (6): 1455.
171. King, Bridgett A. (June 1, 2017). "Policy and Precinct: Citizen Evaluations and Electoral Confidence". Social Science Quarterly. 98 (2): 672–689. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12303. ISSN 1540-6237.
172. Cantoni, Enrico; Pons, Vincent (2021). "Strict ID Laws Don't Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 136 (4): 2615–2660. doi:10.1093/qje/qjab019. hdl:11585/821494. ISSN 0033-5533. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud, actual or perceived.
173. Roff, Peter (June 10, 2011). "Poll: Democrats and Republicans Support a Voter ID-Check Law". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
174. Blanton, Dana (April 18, 2012). "Fox News Poll: Most think voter ID laws are necessary". Fox News. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
175. "Republicans and Democrats Move Further Apart in Views of Voting Access". Pew Research Center. April 22, 2021.
176. Parks, Miles (August 28, 2021). "Democrats Are Now Open To New Voter ID Rules. It Probably Won't Win Over The GOP". NPR. Retrieved September 2, 2024.
177. Saad, Lydia; Willcoxon, Nicole (October 14, 2022). "Eight in 10 Americans Favor Early Voting, Photo ID Laws". Gallup.com. Retrieved September 2, 2024.
178. ^ Wilson, David C.; Brewer, Paul R. (December 21, 2013). "The Foundations of Public Opinion on Voter ID Laws Political Predispositions, Racial Resentment, and Information Effects". Public Opinion Quarterly. 77 (4): 962–84. doi:10.1093/poq/nft026. ISSN 0033-362X.
179. Wilson, David C.; Brewer, Paul R. (January 2016). "Do Frames Emphasizing Harm to Age and Racial-Ethnic Groups Reduce Support for Voter ID Laws?". Social Science Quarterly. 97 (2): 391–406. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12234.
180. Banks, Antoine J.; Hicks, Heather M. (August 2015). "Fear and Implicit Racism: Whites' Support for Voter ID laws". Political Psychology. 37 (5): 641–658. doi:10.1111/pops.12292.
181. Atkeson, Lonna Rae; Alvarez, R. Michael; Hall, Thad E.; Sinclair, J. Andrew (December 2014). "Balancing Fraud Prevention and Electoral Participation: Attitudes Toward Voter Identification". Social Science Quarterly. 95 (5): 1381–98. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12110.
182. "Who believes in voter fraud? Americans who are hostile to immigrants". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
183. Russell, Berman (August 30, 2021). "The Obvious Voting-Rights Solution That No Democrat Will Propose". The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company.
184. Spencer, Douglas M. (2023). "Response: Electoral Maintenance" (PDF). Boston University Law Review. 103 (7): 2209. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 20, 2024. Retrieved September 5, 2024. Perhaps more damning, at least fourteen elections have been invalidated or overturned by a court between 1978-2018 due to absentee ballot fraud while not a single election has been overturned due to voter impersonation fraud.
185. ^ "PolitiFact - Light a match to Greg Abbott's ridiculous claim about 'rampant voter fraud'". Retrieved August 3, 2016.
186. *Cassidy, Christina A.; Moreno, Ivan (May 14, 2017). "In Wisconsin, ID law proved insurmountable for many voters". Associated Press. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
     • Liptak, Adam (March 23, 2015). "Wisconsin Decides Not to Enforce Voter ID Law". The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
     • "Despite Court Ruling, Voting Rights Fight Continues In North Carolina". NPR. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
     • "Trump's Bogus Voter Fraud Claims". FactCheck.org. October 19, 2016. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
     • Vitali, Ali; Peter Alexander; Kelly O'Donnell (May 11, 2017). "Trump establishes vote fraud commission". CNBC. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
     • Colvin, Jill (October 18, 2016). "trump-wrongly-insists-voter-fraud-is-very-very-common". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 20, 2016.
     • "Trump voter fraud claim was '800lb gorilla in jury box' at Texas trial". The Guardian. Associated Press. February 11, 2017. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved May 14, 2017.
187. "The 'Voter Fraud' Myth Debunked". Rolling Stone. June 12, 2012. Retrieved August 8, 2016.
188. Kertscher, Tom (April 7, 2016). "Which happens more: People struck by lightning or people committing voter fraud by impersonation?". @politifact. Retrieved September 8, 2024.
189. "Who Can Vote? - A News21 2012 National Project". votingrights.news21.com. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
190. Bump, Philip (October 13, 2014). "The disconnect between voter ID laws and voter fraud". The Fix. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
191. Pam Fessler (February 14, 2012). "Study: 1.8 Million Dead People Still Registered to Vote". NPR. Retrieved January 18, 2016.
192. Weinger, Mackenzie (February 14, 2012). "Report: 1.8M dead registered to vote". Politico. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
193. Ahlquist, John S.; Mayer, Kenneth R.; Jackman, Simon (December 1, 2014). "Alien Abduction and Voter Impersonation in the 2012 U.S. General Election: Evidence from a Survey List Experiment". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 13 (4): 460–475. doi:10.1089/elj.2013.0231. Existing studies, relying mainly on documented criminal prosecutions and investigations of apparent irregularities, turn up very little evidence of fraud. Critics argue that this is unsurprising because casting fraudulent votes is easy and largely undetectable without strict photo ID requirements.
194. Chatelain, Ryan (July 15, 2021). "Debate over photo voter ID laws is enduring – and complex". Spectrum News NY1. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
195. Rousu, Matthew (September 3, 2014). "Voter ID Would Protect Voter's Rights, Not Inhibit Them". Forbes. Archived from the original on September 7, 2014. Retrieved September 1, 2024.
196. Bingham, Amy (September 12, 2012). "Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epidemic?". ABC News. Retrieved March 30, 2016.
197. "Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud". Fox News. Associated Press. September 24, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2016.
198. Kessler, Glenn (July 24, 2013). "The case of 'zombie' voters in South Carolina". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
199. Hood, M. V.; Gillespie, William (March 1, 2012). "They Just Do Not Vote Like They Used To: A Methodology to Empirically Assess Election Fraud". Social Science Quarterly. 93 (1): 76–94. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00837.x. ISSN 1540-6237.
200. ^ Christensen, Ray; Schultz, Thomas J. (March 1, 2014). "Identifying Election Fraud Using Orphan and Low Propensity Voters". American Politics Research. 42 (2): 311–37. doi:10.1177/1532673X13498411. ISSN 1532-673X. S2CID 154343482.
201. Diallo, Amadou (February 10, 2016). "Republicans champion voter ID laws absent credible evidence of fraud". Al Jazeera America. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
202. Bump, Philip (August 3, 2016). "Here's how rare in-person voter fraud is". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 8, 2016.
203. Minnite, Lorraine (2007). "The Politics of Voter Fraud" (PDF). Project Vote. Retrieved March 29, 2016.
204. Ahlquist, John S.; Mayer, Kenneth R.; Jackman, Simon (2014). "Alien Abduction and Voter Impersonation in the 2012 U.S. General Election: Evidence from a Survey List Experiment". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 13 (4): 460–475. doi:10.1089/elj.2013.0231.
205. Richman, Jesse (October 24, 2014). "Washington Post: Could non-citizens decide the November election?". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 18, 2015.
206. Richman, Jesse T.; Chattha, Gulshan A.; Earnest, David C. (December 1, 2014). "Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?". Electoral Studies. 36: 149–157. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.09.001.
207. Mestel, Spenser (November 1, 2020). "How claims of voter fraud were supercharged by bad science". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved September 16, 2024.
208. Ansolabehere, Stephen; Luks, Samantha; Schaffner, Brian F. (December 2015). "The perils of cherry picking low frequency events in large sample surveys". Electoral Studies. 40: 409–10. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.07.002.
209. Hiltzik, Michael (October 31, 2014). "Today's voting freakout: noncitizens are coming to steal your election". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
210. ^ Cohn, Nate (January 26, 2017). "Illegal Voting Claims, and Why They Don't Hold Up". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 26, 2017.
211. Kessler, Glenn (March 6, 2024). "The truth about noncitizen voting in federal elections". Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 13, 2024. Retrieved April 21, 2024.
212. "Illegal Voting Claims, and Why They Don't Hold Up". New York Times. January 26, 2017. Mr. Richman still maintains that some small percentage of noncitizens vote in American elections. But the debate over this study has moved on. It's no longer about whether millions of illegal votes were cast, but whether there's any evidence for noncitizen voting at all. The study's bold claims fell apart because of something called response error: the possibility that people taking a survey don't answer a question correctly — in this case, a question about being American citizens. There is always a tiny amount of response error in surveys. Respondents might not understand the question. Or they might understand it, but mark the wrong answer by mistake, if the survey is self-administered. An interviewer, if there is one, could accidentally record the wrong answer. Such errors usually aren't a problem large enough to change the results of a survey.
213. Childress, Sarah (October 20, 2014). "Why Voter ID Laws Aren't Really about Fraud". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
214. Coleman, K.J. et al. (November 3, 2014) Voter Identification Requirements: Background and Legal Issues Washington, D.C.
215. Fogarty, Brian J.; Curtis, Jessica; Gouzien, Patricia Frances; Kimball, David C.; Vorst, Eric C. (April 1, 2015). "News attention to voter fraud in the 2008 and 2012 US elections". Research & Politics. 2 (2): 205316801558715. doi:10.1177/2053168015587156. ISSN 2053-1680.
216. Hicks, William D.; McKee, Seth C.; Sellers, Mitchell D.; Smith, Daniel A. (March 1, 2015). "A Principle or a Strategy? Voter Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States". Political Research Quarterly. 68 (1): 18–33. doi:10.1177/1065912914554039. ISSN 1065-9129. S2CID 154205969.
217. ^ Hicks, William D.; McKee, Seth C.; Smith, Daniel A. (February 21, 2016). "The Determinants of State Legislator Support for Restrictive Voter ID Laws". State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 16 (4): 411–431. doi:10.1177/1532440016630752. ISSN 1532-4400. S2CID 27742794.
218. Mendez, Matthew S.; Grose, Christian R. (June 12, 2018). "Doubling Down: Inequality in Responsiveness and the Policy Preferences of Elected Officials". Legislative Studies Quarterly. 43 (3): 457–491. doi:10.1111/lsq.12204. ISSN 0362-9805. S2CID 158018434.
219. Biggers, Daniel R.; Hanmer, Michael J. (January 16, 2017). "Understanding the Adoption of Voter Identification Laws in the American States". American Politics Research. 45 (4): 560–588. doi:10.1177/1532673x16687266. S2CID 157200254.
220. Bright, Chelsie L. M.; Lynch, Michael S. (February 2017). "Kansas Voter ID Laws". Political Research Quarterly. 70 (2): 340–347. doi:10.1177/1065912917691638. S2CID 157372093.
221. ^ "Hawaii Voter ID Law No Big Deal". Honolulu Magazine. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
222. Louis Jacobson (July 28, 2011). "Rhode Island's Voter ID Law: Oddity or Game-Changer". governing.com. Archived from the original on January 31, 2016. Retrieved January 18, 2016.
223. "Voter ID: State Requirements". National Conference of State Legislatures. October 21, 2014.
224. Blake, Aaron (June 21, 2021). "Stacey Abrams and the Democrats' evolution on voter ID". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 29, 2021.
225. Bernstein, Brittany (June 17, 2021). "Stacey Abrams Endorses Manchin's Election Law Compromise". National Review. Retrieved June 29, 2021.
226. ^ Jennie Bowser, Bev DePriest. "Voter ID: State Requirements". Ncsl.org. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
227. "Voter ID is a hot topic but will Alabama's ID law stop election fraud". Anniston Star. July 15, 2012. Archived from the original on January 11, 2014. Retrieved February 22, 2013.
228. "Voter ID law not yet submitted to feds". All Alabama. June 12, 2013. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
229. "Alabama photo voter ID law". AllAlabama.com. June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 28, 2013.
230. "Alabama Photo Voter Identification". Alabamavoterid.com. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
231. Charles M. Blow, "Trump's Troubles in the Black Belt", New York Times, August 8, 2016; accessed August 8, 2016
232. "Alabama Photo Voter Identification - Alabama Secretary of State" (PDF). www.alabamavoterid.com. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
233. "Lynn Revisits Law". Anchorage Daily News. Archived from the original on March 18, 2013. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
234. "House Journal". Alaska State Legislature. January 16, 2013.
235. "Proof of Identification at the Polls". Archived from the original on May 4, 2014. Retrieved May 4, 2014.
236. "Arkansas Judge Finds State Voter-ID Law Unconstitutional". The Wall Street Journal. May 2, 2014. Archived from the original on May 11, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
237. "Martin, et al. v. Kohls et al., 2014 Ark. 427, 444 S.W.3d 496 (Ark. 2014)". Archived from the original on February 16, 2016. Retrieved February 12, 2016.
238. "Where and How to Vote". California Secretary of State. Retrieved July 3, 2022.
239. California Standards for Proof of Residency or Identity When Proof Is Required by Help America Vote Act , February 10, 2006
240. "List of Acceptable Forms of ID". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
241. "Norwalk, CT – Official Website – Voter ID Requirements". Norwalkct.org. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
242. "Long Distance Voter". Vote.org. Archived from the original on June 23, 2013. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
243. "General Voting Information". Florida Division of Elections. Archived from the original on March 17, 2010. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
244. "Complicated History of Georgia Voting". The GRIO MSNBC. April 3, 2012. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
245. Scanlan, Quinn (April 8, 2021). "Civic groups file lawsuit challenging absentee ballot provisions in Georgia's election law". ABC News. Retrieved April 8, 2021.
246. "Voting in Hawaii". Office of Elections. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
247. "Idaho voting". IdahoVotes.com. Archived from the original on July 18, 2013. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
248. "ballotpedia".
249. "Illinois Voter ID Bill". Huff Post Chicago. February 29, 2012. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
250. "Photo ID Law". Indiana Secretary of State. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
251. "Voter ID FAQ". Iowa Secretary of State. Retrieved June 26, 2021.
252. "ballotpedia".
253. Carpenter, Tim. "Voter ID Now Kansas Law". The Topeka Capital-Journal. Archived from the original on January 14, 2014. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
254. Williams, Pete (April 29, 2020). "Appeals court, in blow to Kobach, strikes down Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship to vote". NBC News. Retrieved April 29, 2020.
255. "Voter Information". Kentucky State Board of Elections. Archived from the original on June 4, 2013. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
256. "ballotpedia".
257. "State by State Voter ID..." Ballotpedia. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
258. "Maine Election Information". Rock the Vote. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
259. "Proposed Voter ID ..." MarylandReporter.com. February 11, 2013. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
260. "Voter checklist". Boston.com. November 6, 2012. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
261. "Secretary of State outlines voter identification policies". Michigan Secretary of State. September 5, 2007. Retrieved January 11, 2014.
262. Star Tribune: Congrats, Minnesotans: You made the state No. 1 in voter participation November 22, 2016, reprinted on MN Secretary of State website.
263. "Registering to Vote". Minnesota Secretary of State. Retrieved July 3, 2022.
264. Minnesota Elections Facts: Fact and Fiction, Voter Registration, Before Election Day, After Election Day... 'FACT: Every ballot cast in Minnesota is associated with a registered, eligible voter', Office of Minnesota Secretary of State, Retrieved July 3, 2022
265. "Voter ID Laws". National Conference of State Legislatures.
266. Wing, Nicholas (July 6, 2012). "Mississippi Voter ID Law..." The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
267. "Voter rights act ruling clears..." gulflive.com. June 25, 2013. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
268. EL. "Mississippi Voter ID". State of Mississippi. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
269. "Missouri House Passes Voter ID". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
270. IT, Missouri Secretary of State -. "State of Missouri - Election Night Results". enrarchives.sos.mo.gov. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
271. "ballotpedia".
272. Celock, John (January 25, 2013). "Montana Voter ID Bill Tabled..." The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
273. Registering to Vote, Nebraska Secretary of State
274. "Miller Calls for Voter ID". Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
275. "ballotpedia".
276. "Voting Requirements". NJ Department of State. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
277. "New York Voting Registration". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
278. "North Carolina legislators..." FayObserver. Archived from the original on June 24, 2013. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
279. Ann E. Marimow (July 29, 2016). "Appeals court strikes down North Carolina's voter-ID law". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
280. Julia Harte; Andy Sullivan (July 29, 2016). "North Carolina Voter ID Law Targeted African-Americans, Appeals Court Rules". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
281. Michael Wines; Alan Blinder (July 30, 2016). "Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Requirement". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
282. "Recent Case: Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Provisions of Election Law Enacted with Racially Discriminatory Intent" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 130: 1752. 2017. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
283. "U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Revive North Carolina Voter-ID Law". Bloomberg News. May 15, 2017. Retrieved May 15, 2017.
284. Adam Liptak; Michael Wines (May 16, 2017). "Strict North Carolina Voter ID Law Thwarted After Supreme Court Rejects Case". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
285. "North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
286. "Voter ID". North Carolina Board of Elections. Retrieved September 26, 2019. Beginning in 2020, North Carolina voters will be asked to provide photo identification when voting in-person or absentee-by-mail....
287. Frazin, Rachel (December 27, 2019). "Judge halts North Carolina voter ID law". The Hill.
288. "N. Carolina Attorneys File Appeal Plans of Voter ID Ruling". Spectrum News. Associated Press. January 24, 2020. Retrieved January 25, 2020.
289. "ballotpedia".
290. ^ Dunphy, Peter (July 31, 2019). "The State of Voting Rights Litigation (July 2019)". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved January 9, 2020.
291. "Frequently Asked Questions About Voter Identification". Ohio Secretary of State. 2011. Archived from the original on October 22, 2014. Retrieved October 22, 2014.
292. Higgs, Robert (January 31, 2013). "Ohio House may again..." Cleveland.com. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
293. "Ohio's New Voter Suppression Law Unpacked". Democracy Docket. January 18, 2023. Retrieved January 23, 2023.
294. "Oklahoma Voter ID Law Not Like..." Tulsa World. Archived from the original on June 24, 2013. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
295. ^ "ballotpedia".
296. Camhi, Tiffany (June 6, 2020). "How Oregon became the first state to vote by mail in a presidential election". OPB. Retrieved September 17, 2020. (audio)
297. "Determination on Declaratory Relief and Permanent Injunction" (PDF). Pennsylvania Commonwealth Courts. Retrieved January 21, 2014.
298. Bidgood, Jess (September 11, 2012). "Rhode Island Primary Tests..." The New York Times. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
299. Standera, Renee. "US District Court upholds South Carolina Voter ID law". WMBF-TV. Archived from the original on January 11, 2014. Retrieved October 11, 2012.
300. "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SC vs. US Ruling" (PDF). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Retrieved October 11, 2012.
301. Underhill, Wendy (January 4, 2016). "Voter Identification Requirements; Voter ID Laws". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved January 21, 2016.
302. "Voter ID Laws Haven't Changed". American News. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
303. "Voter ID". TN Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
304. "Texas Takes Aim At Blocked Voter ID Law". Fox News. March 15, 2012.
305. "Texas AG Greg Abbot..." Dallas News. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
306. "Courts reject Texas and Wisconsin voter ID laws". BBC News. October 10, 2014. Retrieved October 10, 2014.
307. "Supreme Court allows Texas voter ID law for now". CNN. October 18, 2014. Retrieved October 19, 2014.
308. "Court Strikes Down Texas Voter ID Law". KHOU Houston. Archived from the original on August 8, 2015. Retrieved August 5, 2015.
309. Robert Barnes, "Appeals court says Texas voter-ID law discriminates against minorities", Washington Post, July 20, 2016; accessed August 4, 2016
310. Tesfaye, Sophia (February 27, 2017). "Jeff Sessions drops DOJ lawsuit against discriminatory Texas voter ID case, reverses 6 years of litigation: The Department of Justice plans to abandon its claim that Texas GOP lawmakers targeted voters of color". Salon. Retrieved July 9, 2017.
311. "Voter ID Laws". Vote Utah 2012. Archived from the original on April 25, 2013. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
312. Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 17, Chapter 51, "Conduct of Elections", §2563, retrieved March 30, 2015.
313. Nolan, Jim; Schmidt, Markus (February 5, 2013). "Senate, House pass bills to limit forms of acceptable voter ID". The News & Advance. Retrieved April 6, 2020.
314. "Supreme Court Will..." The Roanoke Star. June 18, 2013. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
315. "With Voting Rights Act..." PBS Frontline. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
316. "Gov. Northam signs legislation that repeals Virginia vote ID law, makes Election Day state holiday". WVEC. April 12, 2020. Retrieved April 18, 2020.
317. Millhiser, Ian (April 15, 2020). "Kentucky just made it harder to vote during a pandemic". Vox. Retrieved April 18, 2020.
318. "New Washington Resident - Elections & Voting - WA Secretary of State". n.d. Retrieved September 9, 2020.
319. McNulty, Timothy (January 7, 2013). "West Virginia GOP..." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
320. "Voter ID law takes effect". Charleston Gazette-Mail. December 31, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
321. "Divided court upholds Wisconsin's voter ID law". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved September 16, 2014.
322. Davey, Monica (September 13, 2014). "Federal Appeals Court Permits Wisconsin Voter ID Law". The New York Times. Retrieved September 16, 2014.
323. Liptak, Adam (October 9, 2014) – "Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
324. Barnes, Robert (October 9, 2014) – "Supreme Court Blocks Wisconsin Voter ID Law". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
325. "WMTV Channel 15". Retrieved February 16, 2016.
326. "Frank v. Walker - Preliminary Injunction Motion Granted". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved January 9, 2020.
327. Marley, Patrick (May 31, 2018). "Appeals court yet to rule on Wisconsin voter ID and other election laws after 16 months". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved January 9, 2020.
328. Jenkins, Cameron (April 8, 2021). "Wyoming governor signs voter ID bill". The Hill. Retrieved January 25, 2023.
329. Downey, Sarah (April 15, 2021). "Wyoming approves Voter ID bill". The Center Square. Retrieved January 25, 2023.
330. "Voter Identification Requirements". October 31, 2014.

External links

• Voter ID Help by VoteRiders

• Electoral fraud in the United States
• United States election law
• Electoral restrictions
• History of voting rights in the United States
• Voting in the United States
• States of the United States law-related lists
• Voter registration
• Personal identification
• Democratic backsliding in the United States