THIS ISSUE BRIEF is part of a series examining a variety of controversial local and national issues, focusing on specific policy proposals that are under active consideration. The premise of these essays, as outlined here and here, is that many important public policy issues are more complicated than the most fervent adherents to either side usually acknowledge, a dynamic that often hinders our ability to engage in thoughtful debate.  (Earlier essays in the series have addressed proposals for free community college, free MBTA service, the state’s right-to-shelter law, allowing municipalities to enact rent control, whether the state should legalize supervised injection sites, whether to give school librarians more control over book selection while limiting the say of school committees and parents, and whether Massachusetts should establish a reparations commission.) 

For each proposal in the series, I provide some basic background, with a high-level framing of the disagreement and the polarized “bumper sticker” arguments on both sides. I then present what I believe to be the most reasonable evidence-based cases, pro and con. Each issue brief concludes with reflections on possible avenues for finding common ground or higher ground and some basic data points, with links to useful resources, to help facilitate a rational and civil dialogue, ideally leading to agreement or at least understanding, if not in the halls of power, then maybe just around the dinner table. 

The Proposal: 

Require registered voters to present valid identification prior to voting.

Background:

In Massachusetts, voters are not required to provide documentation of their identity to vote, either in person or by mail. Instead, they attest verbally or in writing to their name and address before receiving or submitting a ballot. It is illegal to knowingly misrepresent who you are or where you live when casting a ballot. 

In response to COVID-related public health concerns, most states instituted more relaxed voting procedures in 2020 to limit the extent to which voters needed to come to the polls in person, including longer early voting periods and fewer restrictions on mail-in ballots. Following that election and the ensuing controversy over “election integrity,” however, some states have enacted legislation to at least partially roll back those new provisions and eight states have passed new voter ID laws. Thirty-six states currently require voters to provide some form of valid identification, and 21 of these require or request photo IDs.

A ballot initiative to require Massachusetts voters to produce photo identification was submitted last year but failed to garner enough signatures to qualify for the 2024 ballot. Bills to require IDs are regularly filed in the Legislature but fail to make it out of committee.

Sticking Points and Bumper Stickers:

The partisan disagreement on voting rights is typically framed as election integrity vs. equal voter access. In the end, however, the differences tend to come down to trust, or lack thereof, with advocates on both sides tending to lean in the direction they believe is most favorable to their own candidates.

Stop the Steal!: Republicans who emphasize election integrity are convinced that Democrats play fast and loose with the rules in deep “blue” precincts, stuffing ballot boxes and encouraging unregistered voters (and non-citizens) to vote. 

Jim Crow 2.0!: Many Democratic activists believe that Republicans systematically try to “suppress” voter turnout in heavily “blue” districts, especially those that are disproportionately Black and Latino. 

Evidence-based Case in Favor:

Voter identification is a common practice, not only in most US states, but in most democratic countries around the world. All 47 European countries have some form of voter ID requirements, as do other major democracies, such as Canada, Mexico, India, and South Africa. Indeed, Massachusetts is much more the exception than the rule.

There is little or no evidence, in the United States or elsewhere, that voter ID requirements reduce voter turnout. Neither New York nor California has voter ID laws, and yet their turnout in the 2020 presidential election was under 60 percent. Turnout in Wisconsin and Michigan, both of which have photo ID voter requirements, was over 70 percent. 

A 2021 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that voter ID laws “have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.” The NBER findings echo those of a 2012 study by MIT’s Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), which found that when voters were notified of voter ID requirements, the effect on turnout was marginally positive, including among “low-propensity” voters.

States like Georgia that have long-standing voter ID laws and recently placed limits on its COVID-era voting rules are often accused of “voter suppression,” even though taken as a whole, their voting rules look a lot like those in Massachusetts – and in some cases are even more “progressive.”

Unlike Massachusetts, Georgia allowed no-excuse absentee ballots even before COVID. After amending its election laws in 2021, Georgia still has an early voting window of three weeks, compared to Massachusetts, where early voting begins 11 business days prior to an election. Like Georgia, Massachusetts requires voters to specifically request a mail-in or absentee ballot (i.e., they are not mailed automatically to all registered voters). In 2016, Georgia enacted automatic voter registration through the department of motor vehicles; Massachusetts enacted a similar law just last year. 

As for Georgia’s ID requirement, even Georgia voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams has said, “no one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote,” although she has advocated for more flexible rules governing valid forms of identification. Although IDs are not required for voting in the Commonwealth, voters may be asked to produce a valid ID under certain specific circumstances. 

Voter participation in Georgia during the 2022 election saw the highest off-year turnout in its history, exceeding turnout in Massachusetts, while turnout of Georgia’s Black registered voters that year was 52 percent, compared to 33 percent among Massachusetts’s Black voters.

According to a 2021 Monmouth University poll, 80 percent of Americans support voter ID laws, with large majorities across all demographic groups.  Even though there is little direct evidence that voter ID laws reduce incidents of outright fraud, the fact that they are so popular provides an added level of comfort among voters that the process is transparent and fair, thereby improving confidence that the outcomes are valid and trustworthy.

The bottom line is that voter ID laws provide greater assurance of election integrity, without restricting access to voting or reducing participation by people of color.

Evidence-based Case Opposed:

Given the fact that there is little or no evidence that ineligible voters are affecting electoral outcomes, insisting on voter IDs seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Even without IDs, voters still need to be registered and attest to their identity and place of residence, subject to legal penalties. 

It’s common sense that if you remove arbitrary barriers to voting and give people more options for how to vote, more of them will be willing and able to do so. The question is whether more accommodating voting procedures undermine the integrity of elections, and on that question the jury is in. Notwithstanding numerous recounts, investigations, and court cases in multiple jurisdictions, no credible evidence has been presented to indicate that COVID-era reforms produced any illegalities. 

If voter ID requirements don’t reduce fraud, they can affect who is able to vote, often in ways that disadvantage voters of color. Relative to whites, more than twice as many Black and Latino adults lack a valid ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, causing voter ID laws to have a disproportionate negative effect on voters of color – especially among those who are low-income. 

Compounding the equity problem is the growing use of mail-in ballots. Mail-in voting typically requires two signatures, one on the ballot and one on the outside of the envelope, but in general no ID is needed. In other words, most people who vote by mail are exempt from ID requirements. According to a national study, only 38 percent of Black voters used a mail-in ballot in the 2020 election, compared to 45 percent of white voters.

Reducing barriers to voting and simplifying the process can increase participation of eligible voters. By way of example, the relaxation of election procedures in 2020, contributed to historically high levels of voter turnout, without any evidence of increased fraud. In 2020, almost half of all voters mailed in their ballot and another quarter voted early in person. Only about one-quarter of voters showed up at polling places on election day in 2020, compared to 86 percent in 2000. Overall turnout in 2020 was almost 67 percent of eligible voters, compared to just over 54 percent in 2000 – both years with hotly contested presidential races.

It’s impossible to consider stricter voting requirements without appreciating the history of Black Americans and their systematic exclusion from the ballot box until the mid-1960s through a variety of arcane rules and regulations designed to suppress Black voting both directly and indirectly. This disgraceful historical record, which was overturned only through the heroic struggle of the Civil Rights Movement, has engendered deep suspicion of any effort to place new barriers in front of voters, no matter how technical or innocuous they may sound, especially when such proposals are paired with unfounded partisan charges of malfeasance in predominantly Black precincts. 

In this context, it’s easy to see why many Black voters and other people of color feel that voter ID laws present threatening opportunities for racially motivated electoral manipulation and disenfranchisement, which can in turn undermine their willingness to turnout on election day, unfairly skewing the results.

In close elections where every vote counts, even small effects on participation can make all the difference, especially when they are not evenly distributed. To ensure everyone who is eligible to vote has an equal and accessible opportunity to do so, unnecessary barriers like voter ID requirements should be eliminated or avoided. 

Potential for Common Ground or Higher Ground:

The extremes on both sides of this argument believe the other is manipulating the electoral process to win at all costs. Put in somewhat less emotionally charged terms, advocates for election integrity prioritize going the extra mile to ensure the rule of law and voter confidence, even if that means some eligible voters are discouraged or excluded, while those who are primarily concerned with expanded and equitable voter access concentrate on maximizing participation, even if it means some voters turn out to be ineligible.

Not all voter ID laws are the same and some states have workarounds for people who show up at the polls without proper documentation, including allowing them to sign a sworn affidavit attesting to the fact that they are who they say they are. 

Beyond any specific policy changes, empowering a truly independent third party to oversee elections might help to address the trust issues on both sides, while enabling a more objective consideration of promising strategies to both improve election integrity and increase voter participation in all communities. For example, in some states, non-partisan commissions are employed to draw district lines with little or no role for the legislature or governor, to prevent gerrymandering. A similar approach could be taken to overseeing elections, rather than relying on state and local elected officials. 

Other strategies for increasing participation that don’t affect concerns about potential wrongdoing might include non-partisan primaries, even-year municipal elections, and scheduling general elections on a holiday, like Veterans Day.

Jim Peyser served most recently as Massachusetts secretary of education under Gov. Charlie Baker.

Data:

  • Percent of US eligible voters participating in 2020 presidential election: 67 percent (highest turnout since 1992)
  • Percent of Massachusetts eligible voters participating in 2020 presidential election: 66 percent (#26 in state rankings)
  • Percent of eligible US voters participating in 2020 presidential election, by race/ethnicity (survey data): White = 70%; Black = 59%; Asian = 43%; Hispanic = 38%
  • Number of states with voter ID requirements: 36 (21 require photo IDs)
  • Number of states with early voting: 46
  • Number of states with “no-excuse” mail-in voting: 34
  • Number of states with same-day registration: 21

Sources & Resources:

US Census Bureau Voting and Registration Tables (https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/voting/data/tables.html)

2022 Gallup Poll on Early Voting and Voter ID Laws (https://news.gallup.com/poll/403052/eight-americans-favor-early-voting-photo-laws.aspx)

Vote 411 Survey of State Voter Laws (https://www.vote411.org/voting-rules)

National Conference of State Legislatures:  Voter ID Laws (https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id#toggleContent-15991)

MIT Election Data (https://electionlab.mit.edu/)