Debate Desk
Is Requiring Voter ID a Form of Voter Suppression in America?
Most democracies require ID to vote, courts have upheld ID laws with safeguards, and free IDs plus an accessible process answer the access concern.
The claim
Opponents of voter ID laws say that some citizens, especially the elderly, the poor and minorities, lack a government-issued photo ID, that getting one takes time and money, and that in-person impersonation is so rare that the burden is not justified. The laws, they say, are meant to keep people from voting.
The answer in three points
- An ID check is a modest, familiar safeguard. Americans show identification to board a plane, pick up a prescription or open a bank account. Confidence in elections is a value in itself, and a simple check tells every voter that the person in front of him in line is who he says he is.
- The burden can be made very small. A state that requires ID can provide it free, accept a wide range of documents, allow a provisional ballot cured within days, and send a mobile unit to those who cannot travel. Such laws address the access problem without dropping the check.
- The Supreme Court held in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) that Indiana's photo ID law was constitutional, by a vote of 6 to 3. The bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005 recommended photo ID with safeguards, and many democracies abroad require it.
A rule that is simple, free to comply with and applied to all builds trust.
The numbers
- The Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Marion County Election Board in 2008, upholding Indiana's voter ID requirement.
- The Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, recommended in 2005 that voters show photo identification.
- The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that a majority of states require some form of identification at the polls, with the rules varying in strictness.
What they will say next
"Impersonation fraud is almost nonexistent." Impersonation is hard to detect precisely because there is no check, so the absence of cases proves little. Even if rare, a safeguard that is cheap and quick preserves trust, which is the real aim.
"Studies show ID laws do not reduce turnout." Several studies find little or no effect on turnout, which undercuts the claim that the laws suppress votes. That strengthens the case for them.
"Some people lack ID." Then the state should help them get one, free of charge, with outreach. An ID law that is properly built helps people to participate.
"It is a Jim Crow tool." Past abuses were real, and the answer is to design a law that applies equally and is tested in court, as the courts have done. Many voters of every background support ID laws in polls.
Elections run on trust, and a fair process shows each voter that the rules apply to everyone.
"The cost of getting documents is a barrier." States can waive fees and help people obtain birth certificates, which resolves much of the problem. An ID law that includes such help is fairer.