0
“Show Me Your ID: A Look at Voter ID Laws and the Effect on Voter Turnout”
Elizabeth Meyer
Political Science Thesis
Hartwick College
Spring, 2013
Professor Elder
1
Introduction
One of the most fundamental aspects of a democracy is the people hold the power.
Voting is one way in which the people are able to express and use their power. Therefore voting
is a fundamental right. As of 2012, a variety of voter identification laws were placed in effect
throughout the United States. Some research on the effects of the voter ID laws conducted prior
to the 2012 presidential election indicated that voter identification laws would cause voter
turnout to decrease (e.g. Clark, Hershey, Sobel). Based on these studies, many were alarmed at
the widespread passage of voter ID laws in the years before the 2012 election. They were
concerned those particularly affected by the new laws would be the elderly (those 65 and older)
and minorities. Thus the passage of voter ID laws brings into question equality, which is seen as
a fundamental component to our society, in terms of voting and access to the polls.
An additional question that is raised with the implementation of voter identification laws
is whether or not we should be more concerned with the integrity of our voting system or with
the accessibility of voting. On one side of the issue there is the need to ensure that the integrity of
the election process is being kept and potentially increased. This would mean that the new ID
laws would be beneficial in ensuring that voter fraud is not occurring and therefore give more
integrity to the voting process.
Those who are in favor of voter identification laws feel that there is wide spread voter
fraud occurring and these laws will help to decrease the fraud and create more legitimate results
in voting results. Those who are opposed to the idea of voter ID laws feel that a burden is created
amongst those who may not have a proper form of ID. The law is also thought to be a type of
poll tax, which was prohibited through the twenty-fourth amendment of the Constitution
(Ansolabehere and Persily,1,739).
2
The other side of the issue is that voting should remain as accessible to the population as
possible. Voter ID laws may hinder this and potentially cause people to not be able to access the
ballots without proper forms of identification, which are often time consuming to obtain and
place an additional cost on the voter. The additional costs to obtain a form of identification may
deter people from going to the polls and thus makes voting a burden, therefore making voting not
as easily accessible as it previously was.
Early efforts to liberalize the voter requirements actually produced backlash in many
states. Many states were concerned that it was becoming too easy to vote in terms of early voting
rules, absentee ballots, and no excuse absentee voting. This prompted discussion regarding voter
ID laws and the tightening of voting rules in order to ensure that the voting system was not being
taken advantage of (Hershey, 157). Leading up to the 2012 Presidential election there was a large
amount of debate and discussion about what effect, if any, there would be with the recently
implemented voter identification laws that were occurring across the United States. Many
scholars believed that voter turnout would decrease do to the voter-ID laws and there would be a
substantial effect on voter turnout amongst different demographics of people.
My thesis examined the impact of voter ID laws that were placed into effect between
2008 and 2012. The research and data collected will look to see whether states that implemented
a form of voter ID law between 2008 and 2012 saw a decrease in voter turnout in the 2012
presidential election, as was predicted by the literature. In brief this thesis finds minimal support
for Voter ID laws having an effect on voter turnout during the 2012 election.
3
Literature Review
Emergence of Voter ID Laws
In 2002, the Help America Vote Act was implemented which was a federal requirement
for voter identification in certain situations. “The HAVA mandates that all states verify the
identity of first-time voters who register by mail and do not provide verification with their
registration application” (Hale, 281). The Act also stated that those who registered through the
mail “must provide an acceptable form of identification either with the registration application or
at the time that they first vote in the state, whether in person or by absentee ballot” (Hale, 281).
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 has led to a large number of states adopting some form of
identification requirement for voters that goes beyond the federal requirement. Currently 33
states have a form of voter identification requirement. However, some of these states are
currently experiencing challenges towards the voter identification requirements in the state
Supreme Court. Many of the states began testing the voter identification requirement back in
2006, but it was not until 2012 when voter-ID laws went into full effect for many states
(Alvarez,1-2).
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was seen as the starting point towards the voter
identification laws. While the Act itself does not specifically require states to create voter
identification requirements, the Act helped to facilitate the emergence of voter ID laws.
However, the emergence of the ID laws would not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Many states
began challenging the constitutionality of voter ID laws.
Constitutional Challenge
4
The Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) brought into
question the constitutionality of voter-ID laws (Williams, 379). William Crawford, an Indiana
state representative brought the case to the Supreme Court claiming the unconstitutionality of the
law and that there would be a great ‘personal impact’ if the law remained in effect. The Court
ruled that there was nothing unconstitutional about voter-ID laws and that “there was not
adequate evidence in the Crawford record that voter-ID requirements denied a basic right”
(Sobel, 81). While claims of voter fraud were made during the hearing before the Court no
evidence was presented that voter fraud existed or was a problem. The Court’s decision to
uphold the law as constitutional indicated that the Court felt that there was an issue occurring
during the voting process and voter identification laws would help, “even though that was not the
reason the legislature had adopted it” (Williams, 379). However, the Court noted that if evidence
did arise indicating a burden to the citizens regarding voting occurred, a revisit to the case is
possible. Crawford has lead many to question voter-ID laws and to look at what potential
consequences can emerge from the implementation of voter-ID laws.
After Crawford many states began to determine whether a voter ID law was necessary for
their respective state as well as what type of ID law would be best suited for the state. Originally
all the new ID requirements hade effect dates on or before 2012, however, many states faced
constitutional challenges towards the ID laws and ended up not going into effect for the 2012
election (Weisner, 7). Four types of voter ID laws have been chosen by the states.
The table below indicates the states that have a form of ID law, whether the law was in
effect for 2012, and the year the ID law was passed. The table below shows 24 states passed an
ID law between 2008 and 2012. Of the 24 states, 19 of the states had the law go into effect prior
to the 2012 election.
5
Table 1: States that have a type of ID Law, Whether the law is in effect and in what year the law
was passed
State
Type of ID Law
In Effect
Year Law was Passed
in 2012
1.Georgia
Strict Photo ID
Y
2005,2006
2.Indiana
Strict Photo ID
Y
2005
3.Kansas*
Strict Photo ID
Y
2011
4.Tennessee*
Strict Photo ID
Y
2011
5.Florida*
Photo ID
Y
2010
6.Hawaii*
Photo ID
Y
2012
7.Idaho*
Photo ID
Y
2010
8.Louisiana*
Photo ID
Y
2010
9.Michigan*
Photo ID
Y
2010
10.New
Photo ID
Y
2011
11.South Dakota
Photo ID
Y
2003
12.Arizona
Strict Non-photo ID
Y
2006
13.Ohio
Strict Non-photo ID
Y
2006
14.Virginia*
Strict Non-photo ID
Y
2012
15.Alaska*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2012
16.Arkansas*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2010
17.Colorado
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2003
18.Connecticut*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2010
Hampshire*
6
19.Delaware*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2010
20.Kentucky*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2011
21.Missouri*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2011
22.Montana
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2003
23.North Dakota
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2003
24.Oklahoma*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2010
25.Rhode Island*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2011
26.South Carolina*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2011
27.Utah*
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2009
28.Washington
Non-strict Non-photo ID
Y
2005
29.Mississippi
Strict photo ID
N
2011
30.Pennsylvania
Strict photo ID
N
2012
31.Texas
Strict photo ID
N
2011
32.Wisconsin
Strict photo ID
N
2011
33.Alabama
Photo ID
N
2003, 2011
* States that implemented ID Law between 2008 and 2012
Voter ID Laws and Turnout
Some previous scholarship has argued that, “the new laws could make it significantly
harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012” (Weiser,1). Many
academics as well as good government groups have expressed a concern that voter-ID laws
present a barrier and may prevent some people from voting. This barrier would prevent people
from gaining access to the polls and will greatly affect “different groups or classes of voters”
(Ansolabehere, 129).
7
One theory often associated with voting is an economic model of costs versus benefits.
The model indicates that voter turnout declines when the costs increase. An increase in the cost
of voting does not necessarily mean monetary costs but also includes time, energy or additional
steps in order to access the polls. According to Marjorie Hershey, people are most likely to vote
when the benefits they expect to receive from the voting process are higher than the cost (87).
One study found that a voter ID requirement could reduce voter turnout by 2-3 percent
(Sobel, 81). This is of great importance to look at since voting is seen as one of the most
fundamental rights that a democracy can have. A concern with voter identification laws is that
there will be a substantial effect on voter turnout. Some scholars suggest that if there are strict
voter-ID laws then there will be a correlation with lower voter turnout (Hershey, 87). A crosssectional study done in 2004 found that voter turnout decreased by 3 to 4% in states that had a
signature, non-photo ID and photo-ID rules (Hershey, 88).
While the United States already has a low voter turnout nation wide, voter-ID laws have
the potential of driving the nation’s overall turnout number even lower than it currently is at.
Studies by Sobel, Clarke and Hershey found that a reduction in voter turnout would occur with
the implementation of voter ID laws. However, it was suggested, “the more politically involved
are more likely to learn about voter-ID rules and also more likely to vote” (Hershey, 88). This
suggests that those who are actively voting will be already aware of the voter-ID requirements
and will make sure they have the proper form of identification before heading to the polls.
A study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that approximately one in ten persons do
not have a proper government issued ID required to vote. This means that approximately 11% of
American citizens do not have proper ID and would therefore be ineligible to vote. An even
larger portion of minorities, low income and elderly do not have a proper form of ID. If other
8
states begin to implement voter ID requirements there is the possibility of a greater number of
Americans being ineligible to vote (8).
A conflicting study by Stephen Ansolabehere indicated that the barrier created by voter
ID laws does not substantially affect voters. If anything very few voters are actually affected.
“Voter ID does not appear to present a significant barrier to voting” (Ansolabehere, 129). A
study done in 2008, surveyed 1,113 non-voters and asked why they did not vote in the 2008
election. Of those surveyed, only 4 responded with ‘I did not have proper identification’,
indicating that there are other reasons why people are not voting and identification problems are
not the main cause (Ansolabehere, 129).
Unequal Impact
Some scholars have argued that voter-ID laws will affect minorities the most and will
cause drastic decreases in voter turnout amongst this demographic. “Perhaps no issue threatens
the fragile status of the voting rights of African American and Latino voters more than recent
efforts to adopt mandatory voter identification requirements” (Clarke, 9). Voter-ID laws create a
burden amongst the minorities and are seen by some as voting discrimination. A disproportionate
percent of African American and Latino voters are found near and amongst those in poverty.
Many who fall into this category do not have an acceptable form of voter identification, such as a
driver’s license, and would not be able to obtain a form of identification because of the cost. A
financial burden is created for those who cannot afford the proper form of identification needed
to vote (Clarke, 10).
A study during the 2004 presidential election found that there is a correlation between
“burdensome and costly voter ID requirements and depressed voter turnout rates” (Clarke, 11).
The evidence from the study shows that “the costs outweigh any benefits that identification
9
proponents might hope to derive” (Clarke, 11). This evidence suggests that the burdens
identification requirements have would have a significant impact on racial minorities, indicating
that the African American and Latino population would have to weigh the costs and benefits of
voting. With ID requirements many African Americans and Latinos do not have proper ID and
therefore would have to take on a financial cost in order to obtain a proper ID (Clarke, 12). This
is worrisome because national voter turnout is already at a low. Additionally, with a growing
African American and Latino population, this group would not be equally represented when
casting votes and would not get a say in elections and other decisions made through the voting
process.
Racial minorities are not the only ones who are at risk of feeling the burden of voter ID
laws. The elderly, those considered sixty-five or older, are also at risk of voter discrimination.
“Particularly those who are home bound or those with physical disabilities” may have a hard
time casting their ballots due to lack of proper identification (Clarke, 14). “Poor and disabled
people and minorities have a harder time obtaining the required documents” (Hershey, 158).
Those with disabilities or are home bound are at the risk of not being able to get to a government
agency that issues a form of photo identification. The elderly may have expired forms of ID,
which would not be permitted at the polls, and would not have means of getting to an agency that
produces photo IDs. Both racial minorities and the elderly are also found to not have the proper
funds in order to obtain the identification required, thus creating another burden. (Hershey, 158).
On the opposite side of the age spectrum are the youth voters. While there is some
concern that the youth, those under the age of 30, would not have proper identification it is most
likely that this group will already have the proper form of identification. For most states a
driver’s license is considered acceptable as identification (Clarke, 20). There has been an
10
increase in youth obtaining drivers licenses and therefore whether they are aware of the voter
identification laws or not chances are they already have the proper form of ID and therefore the
voter turnout amongst the youth should not be greatly affected by voter-ID laws (Clarke, 21).
One issue addressed by Weisner in regards to college students and the ability to vote is
whether or not a student ID would be considered a proper form of ID. There are currently three
states that do not accept college IDs as a proper form of identification. There have been
questions raised about the fairness of voter ID laws that exclude school issued photo ID because
a large portion of the population holds such an ID. Some scholars feel that the exclusion of
student IDs is a partisan move to exclude the youth group, which tends to vote Democratic (8).
The Need for Future Research
Much of the research done so far has made claims that voter identification laws will
reduce voter turnout and voter ID laws pose a significant burden on various demographics of the
voting population. However, adequate research has not been done to determine if this is in fact
true. It has yet to be seen whether or not these burdens will be present in the 2012 election and
have a substantial effect on voter turnout. Research has been limited on voter ID laws because
there were only a few states that implemented ID laws in earlier elections. Since many states
passed and enacted laws between 2008 and 2012 there has not been an opportunity to
systematically examine the impact of voter ID laws.
According to Weisner, the states have changed their voting laws so rapidly that one
single analysis of the overall impact has not occurred. It will require a few elections to occur
before the true impact of voter ID laws can be assessed. However, turnout in the United States
continues to be less that two-thirds during presidential elections and less than half during
11
midterm elections (1). With the turnout numbers already low it will be important to note whether
or not ID laws are causing the turnout to decrease.
Hypotheses
Prior to the 2012 Presidential election a number of states implemented a form of voter
identification requirement in order to cast a ballot. Previous literature provides a somewhat
complex and contradictory picture as to what effect we might expect these laws to have. Based
on some of the literature, including the articles by Hershey, Sobel, Clarke etc. it would suggest
that voter turnout in states that have implemented a voter ID requirement between the 2008 and
2012 elections would see a larger decline in voter turnout than in the nation overall. National
voter turnout in 2008 was at 61.1 percent and turnout in 2012 dropped to 58.2 percent
(McDonald). Based on the literature the following hypotheses can be made:
H1: There was a bigger than average decrease in voter turnout in states that implemented
a voter identification law between 2008 and 2012. States with a strict photo ID law will have the
greatest decrease in voter turnout followed by states with non-strict, non-photo laws. States with
no voter ID laws at all will show the smallest decline in vote.
H2: The elderly, those 65 and older, will have the larger than average decline in voter
turnout in states with voter ID laws since the costs of the voter ID laws are higher for elderly
voters than others.
H3: Minorities will have a higher than average decrease in voter turnout in states with
voter ID laws as once again previous literature leads us to expect that the costs of the voter ID
laws will be more for minorities than white voters.
A diametrically and opposite hypothesis can also be made: Voter identification
requirements had no effect on voter turnout in the 2012 election. This expectation can be made
12
because preliminary research indicated that the ID laws did not have an effect. As well as some
academic studies have examined the effect of voter ID laws and found no effect (Ansolabehere).
Additionally, after the 2012 elections there were very few reports about people or states
where voter ID laws were problematic. According to academic research that was done before the
2012 election, the ID laws were seen as negative and would have an effect on voter turnout. If
this were true, I would have expected to see more news about the voter ID laws after the 2012
election.
The hypotheses made suggest that it is unclear as to what to expect in regards to voter
turnout and what effect voter ID laws played in the 2012 presidential election.
Methods
This thesis used a cross-sectional analysis design. This design entails an aggregate data
analysis of all 50 states in order to look for possible relationships between states who had a voter
ID law in effect during the 2012 presidential election, those states without a voter ID law, and
voter turnout. The research design will look to see if there was a larger than average decrease in
voter turnout for states with a form of voter identification law.
Preliminary research found that voter ID laws did not appear to have a substantial effect
on voter turnout in the 2012 Presidential election. However, only a small sample of states was
looked at during the preliminary research while this research will look at all 50 states.
To measure whether or not states had a voter ID law in place, when the Voter ID law was
implemented, and how strict it was, this thesis relies on data from The National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL). The NCSL reports what type of voter-ID law the state has: a strict
voter-ID law, photo ID law, strict non-photo ID law, non-strict non-photo ID law or no ID law.
13
The NCSL also reports of when each state enacted the voter ID law, and whether or not the law
was in effect during the 2012 election (Voter Identification Requirements).
In addition to collecting data on the central independent variable in this study- whether
states enacted a voter ID law between 2008 and 2012 elections- data on other relevant variables
was collected. 2010 census data from the U.S. government was used to look at the break down of
each state in regards to the race, ethnicity, and age. The data will provide a look as to what the
racial, ethnicity and age make up of each state is. These three demographics are being looked at
specifically because the literature suggested that a decrease in voter turnout would occur among
minorities and the elderly.
Politico provides a look into which states were considered swing states, safe/leaning
Democratic states and safe/leaning Republican states. Politico uses Real Clear Politics polling
averages in order to help identify competitive/swing states. This was looked at for both the 2008
and 2012 election in order to see if there is a trend as to which states have voter ID laws based on
the voting trend of the state (2008 Swing State Map & 2012 Swing State).
The dependent variable in this thesis is looking at if voter ID laws are ‘harmful’ to voter
turnout in states that have implemented ID laws. Data from the U.S. Election Project was used as
the dependent variable measure. The U.S. Elections Project provides information on each state
and the turnout of the Voting Eligible Population (VEP) for 2008 and 2012. The Voting Eligible
Population Turnout Rate is the most accurate because it is calculated by taking the vote for
highest office divided by the voting eligible population. The percentage calculated gives the best
estimate of the turnout rate (McDonald). The percentage for 2008 and 2012 will be compared,
along with a comparison to the national turnout percentage in 2008 and 2012.
14
Through the use of exit polls from The New York Times voter turnout of particular
demographic groups was compared from the 2008 and 2012 Presidential election. The New York
Times exit polls report the percent of the total votes from the state were casted by various
demographic groups. Exit poll data was collected for race: white and black, ethnicity:
Hispanic/Latino and age: 18-29 and 65+ (Election Results 2008 & Election 2012).
While exit polls are not the ideal source of data for voter turnout, as they report on the
percent of the electorate each group forms rather than the actual turnout rate of each group, no
source reporting turnout rate of demographic groups by state is available at this time. Exit polls
are the closet indicator as to the turnout rate of groups in 2008 and 2012. Therefore using exit
poll data for 2008 and 2012 allows for a consistent form of data collection.
The coding sheet below was used to gather the necessary information for each state.
15
Coding Sheet
Name of State:______________________________________________
Voter ID Law:
Yes
No
ID Law in Effect in 2012:
Yes
No
Passed ID Law:
Yes
No
ID Law went into Effect
Type of ID Law:
prior to 2008
Strict Photo ID
Non-strict Non-photo
between 2008-2012
Photo ID
Strict Nonphoto ID
None
In 2008, was the state: Democratic
Republican
Swing
In 2012 was the state: Democratic
Republican
Swing
Region:
Northeast
Midwest
2010 Census data:
Total population___________________________
Race:
% White____________
% African American____________
% Asian____________
% Other____________
Ethnicity:
%Hispanic or Latino____________
% Not Hispanic or Latino____________
Age:
% under 18____________
% 18 and over____________
% 20-24____________
% 65 and over____________
U.S. Election Project
2008 Turnout among VEP ____________
2012 Turnout among VEP ____________
Exit Poll Data ( for those states with available data)
Voter turnout in 2008:
Voter turnout in 2012:
West
South
16
-White______
-Black______
-Hispanic/Latino______
-18-29_____
-65+_____
-White_____
-Black_____
-Hispanic/Latino_____
-Age 18-29_____
-Age 65+_____
Exit poll data not available_____
Comments:
Data/Results
The data collected was analyzed through a statistical analysis program, SPSS, in order to
assess correlations between voter ID laws and turnout during the 2012 elections.
What kind of States Embrace Voter ID Laws?
First I looked at the basic issue of the type of states that have passed a voter ID law.
Table 2 below represents a crosstabulation of whether the state have a voter ID law and what
region the state is in. According to the table below, 41.7% of states in the Northeast have a voter
ID law and 58.3% of states do not. In the Midwest, 66.7% of states have a voter ID law, 33.3%
of states do not. 61.5% of states in the West have a voter ID law and 38.5% of states do not. The
South has 92.3% of states with a voter ID law and 7.7% of states without. Overall, there are 33
states with voter ID laws, 66.0% and 17 or 4.0% of states that do not.
The table indicates that a vast majority of states have a voter ID law, 66.0%. States in the
Southern, Western and Midwest region tend to have voter ID laws, whereas states in the
Northeast tend to not have voter ID laws. The results from the table suggest that those going to
vote in Southern states were most likely to face the cost of voter ID laws. The results are
concerning given the history of the South and the attempts in the past to deny minorities the right
to vote.
17
Table 2: Does the state have a voter ID Law and Region
Northeast Midwest West
South
Total
Count
5
8
8
12
33
% within
41.7%
66.7%
61.5%
92.3%
66.0%
Count
7
4
5
1
17
% within
58.3%
33.3%
38.5%
7.7%
4.0%
Count
12
12
13
13
50
% within
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Does the state have a
voter ID Law?
Yes
No
Total
Below, Table 3 shows a crosstabulation between states that have a voter ID law and
how the state was labeled in 2012: safe/leaning Democratic, safe/leaning Republican or
swing. 38.9% of Democratic states had a voter ID law and 61.1% of states did not. 87.0% of
Republican states had ID Laws and 13.0% of the states did not. 66.7% of swing states had
an ID law and 33.3% of states did not. In total, 66.0% of states have a voter ID law and
34.0% did not have an ID law.
The results in the table support the literature that indicates the Democratic party is
least likely to favor ID laws and the Republican party is more likely to endorse ID laws. The
fact that a large percent, 66.7%, of swing states have voter ID laws is interesting to look at
as well considering swing states are most often responsible for influencing the outcome of
elections. Therefore the concern regarding voter turnout and voter ID laws is most
applicable in swing states since the margin of difference in outcome for these states is
typically very small. If voter ID laws do suppress the vote in even a small amount in theses
swing states it could change who becomes president or who is placed into an elected
position.
18
Table 3: Does the state have a voter ID law and In 2012 how was the state labeled
Democratic Republican Swing
Total
Does the State have a voter ID
Law
Yes
Count
7
20
6
33
% within
38.9%
87.0%
66.7%
66.0%
No
Count
11
3
3
17
% within
61.1%
13.0%
33.3%
34.0%
Total
Count
18
23
9
50
% within
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Did Voter ID Laws Effect Turnout?
The next section looks at empirical analyses that speak directly to the hypotheses. In
other words, did voter ID laws suppress voter turnout?
Table 4 below represents a comparison of means. The data looks at the average
turnout rate of VEP in the 2012 election in regards to the type of voter ID law a state has.
States with a strict photo ID law had an average turnout rate of 58.00%. States with a
photo ID requirement had an average turnout rate of 60.10% and states with a strict nonphoto ID law had an average turnout rate of 61.30%. Non-strict non-photo ID law states
had an average turnout of 59.114% and states that had no ID requirement had an average
turnout rate of 61.218%.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that states with a strict photo ID law would have the lowest
voter turnout followed by photo ID, strict non-photo ID, non-strict non-photo ID and finally
no ID requirement. As the table below indicates this trend did not occur entirely, strict
photo ID had the lowest turnout, followed by non-strict non-photo, photo ID, none and
strict non-photo. Therefore mixed results occurred and are inclusive providing only
minimal support of the hypothesis.
19
Table 4: Type of ID Law and 2012 % Turnout among VEP
Type of ID Law
Mean
N
Strict photo ID
58.00
8
Photo ID
60.10
8
Strict Non-photo ID 61.30
3
Non-strict non59.114
14
photo
None
61.218
17
Total
59.940
50
Std. Deviation
6.8369
7.4431
7.3301
5.5491
7.0450
6.5310
Table 5 below represents a comparison of means, which looks at whether the state
enacted a form of voter ID law between 2008 and 2012 and the turnout amongst VEP in the
2012 election. It should be noted that some states passed laws before 2008. Table 5
represents the average turnout rate for those states that did enact an ID law and those
states that did not enact a law. Those states that did enact a law between 2008 and 2012
had an average turnout rate of 58.321% in the 2012 election and states that did not enact
an ID law between a 2008 and 2012 had an average turnout rate of 60.932%.
The data indicates that those states that did not enact an ID law between 2008 and
2012 had a higher turnout rate in the 2012 election by approximately 2.5%. The data is
consistent with the idea that voter ID laws did have an effect on the turnout rate in the
2012 election. However, it is unclear if voter ID laws were the sole cause of lower voter
turnout in states with voter ID laws enacted between 2008 and 2012.
The data from table 5 does show approximately a 2.5% difference in voter turnout
between states that enacted a voter ID law and states that did not. This does suggest
support for the study conducted by Sobel, which found that voter ID laws could reduce
turnout by 2-3%.
20
Table 5: 2012 % Turnout Among VEP and States enacted a voter ID Law between 2008 and
2012 election
State enacted a voter ID law between 2008 and
Mean
N
Std.
2012 election
Deviation
Yes
58.321
19
6.3457
No
60.932
31
6.5444
Total
59.940
50
6.5310
Table 6 below looks at states that enacted a voter ID law between 2008 and 2012
and the change in percent of voter turnout rate from the 2008 election to the 2012 election.
The results from table 6 are ultimately the most direct test of this thesis. According to the
table, those states that did enact a voter ID law between 2008 and 2012 saw an average
decrease in voter turnout of 3.5947% and states that did not enact a voter ID law only saw
a decrease of 3.0830%. It is also important to keep in mind that national voter turnout
decreased by approximately 3.4% (McDonald)
The results would indicate that states that enacted voter ID laws saw a larger
decrease in voter turnout, however the results are too close to make a definitive conclusion
regarding voter turnout rates. The results show a difference of approximately half of 1
percent, which is a very small amount.
Table 6: Vote Chance And States enacted a voter ID Law between 2008 and 2012 election
State enacted a voter ID law between 2008 and
Mean
N
Std.
2012 election
Deviation
Yes
-3.5947 19
2.24907
No
-3.0830 31
2.01761
Total
-3.2780 50
2.10076
Did Voter ID Laws Have Disproportionate Impact?
While turnout decreased nationally, the results show the share of votes cast by
African Americans and Latinos actually increased slightly. Table 7 below provides data for
exploring the third hypothesis, which indicated that minorities would have the largest
21
decrease in voter ID laws. According to the table, the black vote increased by an average of
.5000% in states who enacted a voter ID law between 2008 and 2012. The black vote also
increased by an average .9091% in states that did not enact a voter ID law. Overall, the
black voter increased by an average of .8000% from the 2008 election.
The Latino portion of the vote increased by an average of .6667% in states that
enacted a voter ID law and changed by a 2.000% average for states that did not enact an ID
law, causing an average increase of 1.6000% change in Latinos voting during the 2012
election.
The white population had an average decrease of 1.6000% in states that enacted a
voter ID law and an average decrease of voter turnout of 2.6154% in states that did not
enact a voter ID law leading to an average decrease in white voter turnout of 2.333%.
The data from Table 7 shows an overall increase in voter turnout for minorities
from the 2008 to the 2012 election and a decrease in voter turnout for white voters. This
suggests almost an opposite outcome of what was hypothesized. Results from states that
did not enact a voter ID law did have a slightly higher increase in voter turnout rate
amongst minorities compared to states that did have a voter ID law enacted, but overall
minorities had an increase in voter turnout. This is a surprising result especially seeing as
how the white vote decreased in both states that did enact an ID law and states that did not
enact an ID law.
22
Table 7: States enacted a voter ID law between 2008 and 2012 election and Change in
demographic
State enacted a voter ID law between 2008
BlackChange LatinoChange WhiteChange
and 2012 election
Yes
Mean
.5000
.6667
-1.6000
N
4
3
5
Std. Deviation
1.73205
2.08167
2.30217
No
Mean
.9091
2.0000
-2.6154
N
11
7
13
Std. Deviation
2.34327
1.73205
3.6864
Total Mean
.8000
1.6000
-2.3333
N
15
10
18
Std. Deviation
2.14476
1.83787
3.32548
The table below looks at what effect, if any, occurred amongst the Youth voter
during the 2012 election in regards as to whether or not a state enacted a voter ID law
between 2008 and 2012. According to the data is table 8, states that enacted a voter ID law
between 2008 and 2012 saw an average decrease in the youth vote by 1.6000%. States that
did not enact a voter ID law saw an average increase in the Youth vote of 1.4615%. An
overall increase of the youth vote was at an average of .6111%.
The data suggests that voter ID laws had a small negative effect on the youth vote
for states that chose to implement an ID law between 2008 and 2012.
Table 8: State enacted a voter ID Law between 2008 and 2012 and Change in Youth Vote
State enacted a voter ID Law between 2008 and
Mean
N
Std.
2012 election
Deviation
Yes
-1.6000 5
2.60768
No
1.4615
13
3.61975
Total
.6111
18
3.58328
Table 9 looks at whether an effect occurred on the elderly vote. The second
hypothesis predicted that there would be a larger than average decrease in the elderly vote.
According to the table, states that enacted a voter ID law had an average increase in the
elderly vote by 1.000% and states that did not enact a voter ID law also had an increase of
23
1.4615% in the elderly vote, thus an overall average increase of the elderly vote occurred
by 1.3333%.
The data in Table 8 suggests the elderly vote increased overall, with the greatest
increase found in states that did not enact an ID law between 2008 and 2012. Therefore
suggesting the cost factor possibly did not occur that was originally hypothesized.
Table 9: State enacted a voter ID Law between 2008 and 2012 election and Change in
Elderly Vote
State enacted a voter ID Law between 2008 and
Mean
N
Std.
2012 election
Deviation
Yes
1.0000
5
2.91548
No
1.4615
13
3.88620
Total
1.3333
18
3.56453
Discussion:
When looking at the data and the results that were made, it is important to keep in
mind that overall national voter turnout was at 58.2%, a decrease of approximately 3.4%
from 2008 (McDonald). With that being said it is hard to make a definitive conclusion as to
whether or not voter ID laws had a negative effect of voter turnout in the 2012 presidential
election. States that did enact a voter ID law as well as states that did not enact a voter ID
law between the 2008 and 2012 election saw a decrease in voter turnout from the 2008 to
the 2012 election suggesting that there was another factor or factors causing voter turnout
to decrease.
There are other possible explanations as to why voter turnout decreased overall.
One possible reason is because 2008 was a historical year with the first ever African
American running for president and there was loss of that allure in 2012 therefore people
did not turnout in mass as compared to 2008.
24
Another possibility is that there were dire economic circumstances in 2008 that led
to an exceptionally high voter turnout that year. In 2012, there were marginally better
economic conditions, which would have led to the result of lower turnout during the
election. However, it is also important to note that 2012 still had higher voter turnout than
2000,1996, and 1993.
Another possible reason could be that the cost theory did play a role during the
election. This could explain why voter turnout was down a half of one percent in states
with voter ID laws compared to states without a voter ID law. However, it should be noted
that the cost theory does not explain why there was a decline in turnout in non-voter ID
states. As recalled, the cost theory by Hershey suggests that voter turnout declines when
the costs increase. The costs can either be money, time, energy or additional steps to access
the polls. There is a possibility voters felt the time and energy to go the polls for the 2012
elections did not outweigh the benefits of casting their vote. Thus choosing to not turnout
during the 2012 election.
The data suggests that voter ID laws seemed to have had at most a very minimal
effect at lowering voter turnout. Approximately half of 1 percentage point, while this may
seem like a very small amount it is worth considering what possibility half of 1 percent
could do to election results, specifically the results of swing states.
Another interesting conclusion drawn from the data and results is that much of the
literature reviewed suggested that voter ID laws would cause a decrease in voter turnout
among minority groups and the elderly. This decrease would happen because of the cost
theory. There was a concern that with the high amount of voter ID laws that were passed in
Southern states that minorities would be disenfranchised, however the results indicated
25
that in fact minorities were not disenfranchised by voter ID laws. The data suggests that the
minority groups and the elderly did not have a decrease in voter turnout in the 2012
election, but rather increased, contrary to the literature. In fact, it was the white vote that
saw an overall decrease in voter turnout for both states that did and did not enact ID laws
between 2008 and 2012.
In support of the results regarding the increase in minority voter turnout, an article
from The Hill, reported an increase in minority voter turnout during the 2012 election.
According to an analysis conducted by The Associated Press, black voters had a higher
turnout rate than whites. This was the first time the minority voter turnout rate was higher
than whites. William Frey who conducted the report called the findings a ‘tipping point’ for
black voters. The article and data results indicate that minority voters are becoming a
predominant demographic of the voting population and are turning out in record numbers
and will likely continue to do so in future elections, especially the 2016 presidential
election (Easley).
An additional topic of consideration is in regards to the youth vote. The data shows
that the youth vote decreased in states with voter ID laws enacted between 2008 and 2012.
A topic of much controversy leading up to the 2012 elections in regards to the youth vote
was whether or not student IDs from colleges and universities would an acceptable form of
ID. It is possible that the reason there was a large decrease in youth vote turnout rate for
states that enacted a voter ID law between 2008 and 2012 was because student IDs were
not allowed. Therefore, the voter ID laws did place a potential burden on the youth by not
accepting student IDs as an acceptable form of ID. This is a topic I feel will have to be
addressed in the future, especially if additional states choose to adopt voter ID laws.
26
Conclusion:
Are voter ID laws something we really need to worry about? Are they undermining
democracy and equality? The data and results collected suggest the possibility that the
negative effect voter ID laws were predicted to have did not occur. The very modest to no
effect leads us to wonder whether voter ID laws are really as detrimental and problematic
as previously thought. More data would help in determining if voter ID laws are at fault for
the decline in voter turnout or if there are some other factor(s) occurring. After all, 2012
was the first time most states had a voter ID law in effect. These laws received a lot of
attention in the news and this may have helped voters overcome the additional “costs”
these laws placed on potential voters. Additional research and analysis after the 2016
election would help to give a better look at whether voter ID laws are causing a decrease in
turnout.
I think one question to consider is what is going to happen between now and the
next presidential election in 2016? Will more states begin adopting voter ID laws and will
states begin to see ID laws as Constitutional and therefore ID laws will not be struck down
in Court? It is likely that more states will have ID laws in place in 2016. Especially
considering that some states had passed laws prior to 2012, however the courts ruled that
the law could not go into effect in 2012, as there was not enough time, for example
Pennsylvania. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer to those questions. I do
however feel that the data does suggest that voter ID laws did not have a drastic negative
impact on minority and elderly voter turnout rates that was originally hypothesized.
Therefore states are going to be more inclined to try and pass voter ID laws. Especially
knowing what scholars had said about ID laws prior to 2012 did not happen and therefore
27
there is no strong supporting data suggesting minorities and the elderly being harmed by
ID laws. With that being the case, I think it is going to be much more difficult to build a
Constitutional and or persuasive case against the use of voter ID laws.
The Supreme Court also pointed out during its decision in Crawford v. Marion
County Election Board that if there was evidence that citizens were being burdened by
voter ID laws the Court would revisit the case and the decision originally handed down.
Based on the data and results from this thesis the Supreme Court would not consider
revisiting the case and therefore uphold the decision of voter ID laws being Constitutional.
Seeing as how voter ID laws had only minimal effect, on lowering voter turnout.
A topic often associated with voting is voting integrity and whether or not that is
being fulfilled with the election process. The idea of voter fraud often coincides with voting
integrity. Research shows that in those states that implemented a voter ID law between
2008 and 2012 did see a slightly bigger decrease in voter turnout rates and therefore
pointing towards possibly eliminating those who attempt fraudulent voting and therefore
ID laws were actually beneficial. However, voter fraud is a controversial topic seeing as
how there are very few cases of voter fraud (Ansolabehere). So it is possible to conclude
that voter ID laws are playing a role in supporting the integrity of voting, which is seen as a
crucial component to our society and democracy in general.
While it may not be entirely clear what role voter ID laws played in the 2012
election, there is some doubt as to whether or not ID laws are as negative as previous
literature suggests.
28
29
Bibliography
"2008 Swing State Map." 2008 Election. Politico. Web. 18 Mar 2013.
<http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html>.
"2012 Swing States." 2012 Live:News, Analysis, Candidates & Polls. Politico , 24 Dec 2012.
Web. 18 Mar 2013. <http://www.politico.com/2012-election/swing-state/>.
Alvarez, R. Michael Michael, Bailey, Delia and Katz, Jonathan N., The Effect of Voter
Identification Laws on Turnout (January 1, 2008). California Institute of Technology
Social Science Working Paper No. 1267R.
Ansolabehere, Stephen. "Effects of Identification Requirements on Voting: Evidence from the
Experiences of Voters on Election Day." Political Science and Politics. 42.1 (2009): 127130.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Nathaniel Persily. "Vote Fraud In The Eye Of The Beholder: The
Role Of Public Opinion In The Challenge To Voter Identification Requirements."
Harvard Law Review 121.7 (2008): 1738-1774. 7 Oct. 2012.
Clarke, Kristen. "Burdening The Right To Vote: Assessing The Impact Of Mandatory Photo
Identification Requirements On Minority Voting Strength." Harvard Journal Of African
American Public Policy 13.(2007): 9-16. 7 Oct. 2012.
Easley, Jonathan. “Black turnout passed white voters for first time in 2012 election”. The Hill.
(2013). 29 Apr. 2013.
Election Results 2008." New York Times [New York] 09 Dec 2008. 11 Nov. 2012.
<http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html>
Election 2012: President Exit Polls." New York Times [New York] 08 Nov 2012. 11 Nov. 2012.
<http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls>.
30
Hale, Kathleen, and Ramona McNeal. "Election Administration Reform And State Choice: Voter
Identification Requirements And HAVA." Policy Studies Journal 38.2 (2010): 281-302.
7 Oct. 2012.
Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America. 15. Pearson Education Inc., 2011. 157158.
Hershey, Marjorie Randon. "What We Know about Voter-ID Laws, Registration, and Turnout."
Political Science and Politics. 42.1 (2009): 87-90.
McDonald, Michael. "Voter Turnout." United States Election Project. N.p., 17 Mar 2013. Web.
17 Mar 2013. <http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm>.
Sobel, Richard. "Voter-ID Issues in Politics and Political Science." Political Science and
Politics. 42.1 (2009): 81-84.
"U.S. Electoral College." 2008 Presidential Election: Popular Vote Totals. U.S. National
Archives and Records Administration. Web. 11 Nov 2012.
<http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/popular-vote.html>.
United States of America. Census Bureau. 2010 Census Interactive Population. 2010. Web.
<http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/index.php>
Voter Identification Requirements." Legislation and Elections. National Conference of State
Legislatures. 11 Nov 2012. <http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voterid.asp&xgt;.
Weisner, Wendy R. and Lawrence Norde. “Voting Law Changes in 2012”. Brennan Center for
Justice. (2011): 1-36. 2 March 2013.
Williams, David. "The Supreme Court And Indiana's Voter ID Law." Indiana Magazine Of
History 104.4 (2008): 379-385.10 Nov. 2012.