Talk:Voter identification laws

Worldwide Perspective: Dozens of Countries as Opposed to a Handful

Globally, voter ID is the rule, not the exception. It is new and exceptional in the United States, but America is not the world.99.48.42.65 (talk)

That's very much not validated by the data globally, further, the contention in the US is not solely regarding the concept of voter ID, but the accessibility of it. Globally, many countries that do require ID also issue it for free and automatically, a point of contention in the US. Selethor (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Selethor

References need appropriate formatting

According to style guidelines, articles should be formatted by either using ref templates via MLA or APA formats. This page contains bare URLs which could cause the links to expire. Please can someone help and format the references. I will help as well. Thanks very much. Tinton5 (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Harvard Study is biased

Thank you for adding the Harvard study. Going through it, however, I see the table (figure 4) states that voter turnout increased from 2002 to 2006 significantly at all levels. In fact, the states that tightened their policy from non-photo ID to photo ID had higher turnout in 2006 than they did in 2002! I do not buy the table (figure 3) showing turnout as a % of voter age, because a lot of Hispanic populations in the South are under 18.

I also detect some bias here:

Figure 2 shows that voter ID laws have a significant, negative relationship with voter turnout compared to states without voter ID laws. Nonphoto ID laws are associated with a 2.2 percentage point decline in turnout, and photo ID laws are correlated with a 1.6 percentage point decline. Although photo ID laws might be expected to have a larger negative effect than non-photo ID laws, since states have just begun to implement the strictest forms of photo ID laws, we may see stronger effects in the future.

Here, it seems like the writers just wanted to discount the fact that their expectations turned out false. That is poor practice, and it should be noted that their study showed that voter turnout did not decrease when states tightened from non-photo to photo ID.--Screwball23 talk 03:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing irrelevant sentence

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the history section said

The 2004 election saw an expansion of computer voting machines, which were paperless and speculated as vulnerable to fraud.[8]

But the fraud potentially associated with computer voting machines (rigging the machines in advance or altering their totals afterward) has nothing to do with the fraud potentially associated with non-IDed people illegally voting. And the cited article never says anything about voter ID. So I'm removing the irrelevant and potentially misleading sentence. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some questions about content

1. My impression is that the article currently does not distinguish between proving citizenship when registering to vote and proving citizenship when appearing at the polling place. I got the impression from one of the sources that in at least some cases proof is required when registering. But to implement that for the first time, what is done about people who had previously registered without having had to show proof? Or do all states that adopt this requirement impose it both upon new registration and upon appearing at the polling place? Or, are there statistics on how many states do it which way?

2. The map of voter ID laws by state says Oregon and Washington have mail-in voting. Does this imply that it would be impossible for them to impose voter ID, even at the time of registration? Or if that were still possible, then I think there would be no point in giving those two states a separate color category.

3. In states with voter ID requirements, and in particular voter ID requirements at the polls, how do they handle voting by absentee ballot? Can the ID rule be evaded by voting absentee?

4. Also, in the map one category is "No ID is required to vote, with the exception of first-time voters". But my impression is that every state requires a new registrant to put a signature on file, and requires the voter to provide another signature upon arrival at the polls, which is then checked against the file signature by poll workers. If this is true, would it be better to label this category of states as "only matching signature required"?

Thanks for creating this much-needed article! Duoduoduo (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome questions: 1 - In 2002, Bush signed HAVA (Help America Vote Act), making it a priority for states to keep updated registration files to lessen the effects of things like multiple registrations and dead records. That tightened a lot of the documentation policies involved with getting registered to vote. The Motor Voter Registration law was passed around that time and made the DMV the major place for people to get photo IDs and registered for voting. Now, as far as I have read, it has been illegal for noncitizens to vote since the 1930s, but the DOT finds 100,000s of cases of bad registrations from people at the DMV who registered already or are not citizens every year. Since the DOT gives photo ID to people, they would likely be the first to know if a person has photo ID. That leads me to believe that they don't check it, and some federal agency in charge of elections does. I don't know how the elections agencies do it either, because a lot of those forms they get are just registration forms sent in from community groups, schools, political events, so on. The laws on community groups registering people has been getting tighter ever since ACORN and other groups complicated the paperwork of election agencies with bad forms, so they might require some type of ID now, but I don't know the laws on what exactly a community group needs to comply with registration laws. Their MO is all about getting people excited about voting and putting themselves onto the voter rolls, so I highly doubt they would bother to screen people for citizenship, and since the DMV doesn't check, I seriously doubt they would have a stricter requirement. Anyone can fill out a registration form, which are available at public libraries everywhere. They don't require any type of ID, and they are verified by a federal agency. Check this one from California [1]

2 - The blue characterization is necessary to distinguish them from the voter ID regulations at the polls These voter ID laws are state-by-state and affect the way people are treated at the poll; voter registration is handled at the federal level (hence, it is a federal crime to vote multiple times in multiple states).

3 - absentee ballots are usually submitted by the military or by travelers with passport, and they are only allowed to be mailed in weeks or months before the election. I don't know the laws on how a person does mail in voting.

4 - No, because a person who registers and votes for the very first time in those states must still present an ID to vote that first time. The signature requirement is probably in every state, but I seriously doubt every single voter must sign a well-matching signature to vote in every state.--Screwball23 talk 01:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What the sources actually say about the content of the Arizona law

from source [14]: The Tuesday ruling stems from a ballot initiative, Proposition 200, Arizona voters passed in 2004 requiring individuals to produce proof of citizenship, such as a passport, to register to vote, and a picture ID, such as a driver's license, or two pieces of non-photo ID, in order to cast a ballot.

from source [15]: The 2004 ballot proposition required that those registering to vote produce documentation proving citizenship — such as a passport — to register to vote. To cast a ballot, registered voters needed to produce either one form of photo identification or two forms of identification without a photo.

These make it clear that the law required proof of citizenship only to register. You say that people were turned away from the polls from not bringing citizenship proof -- to put this in the article, you need a source, and you need to make it clear that that turning away was not mandated by the law. Or you need to find a source as reliable as Reuters that disputes what Reuters says. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I see from this source that the entire registration procedure was different[2]. Apparently, instead of using the standard mail-in registration system which the federal government would inspect and verify, Arizona's voters would have to show proof of citizenship to register at the DMV or wherever, and then show ID at the polls. I will take down the purple distinction for Arizona now, because the Voter ID laws are for the polls, not registration. My assumption is that the federal government verifies the citizenship of all the people who register, which does not differ by state. As far as I know, no state is allowed to give voting privileges to noncitizens.--Screwball23 talk 00:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The federal government does not verify citizenship of people who register to vote. Also, the states have the right to permit non-citizens to vote, although no state has permitted that since 1928. See Right of foreigners to vote in the United States. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Implementation of formatted sources

Hello. I added the link rot notice to the page, since all the footnotes/sources given are bare URLS. Just a heads up, if they are not properly formatted (example, using the citation templates - { cite web } is most commmon), then the links may expire. So, I will help contribute but it will take a long time for just me to update these sources, so if those of you who are editing this page would not mind help contributing, that would be greatly appreciated. We don't want this informative article with a large amount of sources to have dead links. Thanks. Put your feedback here. Tinton5 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have work now, so I will come back later and help out. Tinton5 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of map in lede

The state-color-coded map in the lede is headlined "Current state-by-state Voter ID laws in the United States". As a general principle Wikipedia articles should never say what is current, because even if it's current at the time of posting, it won't necessarily remain current.

The AARP Bulletin 53 (1), January-February 2012, p. 32 has a chart that disagrees regarding eight of the states:

AARP says that NM does not require an ID, whereas the map here says it requires at least a non-photo ID.

AARP says that Ohio requires a non-photo ID, whereas the map here says it requires a government-issued photo ID.

Texas' and SC's government-issued photo ID requirements have been put on hold by the Justice Department, but the map here does not include that caveat.

AARP says that Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, and Michigan request a photo ID, but the map here describes them as "photo ID" rather than "ID, non-photo accepted".

Further, the later map for 2008 has been wrong for Arizona and labeled dubious since 12 November 2011. I'm going to remove both of these maps unless they are corrected. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do that? You have the ability to help out here and make the changes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, my friend.--Screwball23 talk 03:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have the ability to help out with replacing the incorrect maps with correct maps -- I have no imaging skills. The person who put the wrong maps up there may have the ability to fix or replace them, but I don't. Leaving false information in Wikipedia is a lot worse than omitting it. Again, if the maps aren't replaced or corrected by someone who knows how, I'm going to delete the false information. In doing so I'll also put in text info to replace the "current" map, listing the states by category according to the AARP source, but it would be preferable if someone with imaging skills could present the correct information in a map. I'd replace the incorrect maps with a current text listing right now, but I want to give other editors a couple of days to find any sources that contradict the AARP as to the January 2012 status of any state. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the AARP source? The map itself is sourced, but the information you've listed needs to be cited.--Screwball23 talk 23:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I gave the exact source at the beginning of this section of the talk page--again it is The AARP Bulletin 53 (1), January-February 2012, p. 32. Also the title is "Voter ID Requirements". And true, the map itself is sourced, but since it was put in sometime in 2011 the sources probably said the map was accurate then, not necessarily now. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the printed AARP bulletin. Do you have an internet link I can see? Thanks so much.--Screwball23 talk 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Found it! [3] Duoduoduo (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's an official map of voter ID requirements: National Conference of State Legislatures: Voter Identification Requirements, updated 26 January 2012. The map in the lede here doesn't fully coincide with it. Screwball23, could you adjust the map in the lede accordingly? Thanks, Duoduoduo (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link to source

The source: ^ Richard L. Hasen (2007-05-18). "The Fraudulent Fraud Squad: The incredible, disappearing American Center for Voting Rights.". Slate. With the URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2166589/pagenum/all/ is dead.

Looks like an incomplete url Randomgenerator (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's an incomplete URL. The story is just no longer available on the Slate website. I found the cached version on the Wayback Machine with the URL http://web.archive.org/web/20101225110235/http://www.slate.com/id/2166589/pagenum/all/ and substituted that in the reference. Thanks for the heads-up! JamesMLane t c 14:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Signatures as ID

The map in this article says that NY has no voter ID law, and I'm not sure what NY's exact law is, but at every election I've voted in in NY, I've had to sign a book, and then that signature is compared to a signature on record (assumably the signature used on the original voter registration form). This is a form of ID, is it not? Or does this article use the word "ID" as a shorthand for "ID card"? Should this be reflected in the article? Usageunit (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One has to sign-in in VT as well wen voting at the polls, but I don't know if that signature is ever checked against anything. VT, to my knowledge, doesn't even have a statewide voter list. Its voter lists are maintained from local community to local community as far as I remember. Guy1890 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Until this year, that was the procedure in Pennsylvania, which implemented one of the nation's more restrictive photo ID laws this year. The law was recently upheld by a Commonwealth Court judge, a decision now being appealed to the state's Supreme Court. Allreet (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

College ID vs weapon permit

In the "From 2011 onward" section it says:

"Texas law recognizes a weapon permit but not a college ID, raising criticism that the law is unfavorable to young voters, who trend liberal, while favorable to gunowners, who trend conservative."

Isn't the point, just as much, that they recognizes government issued photo ID and that a weapon permit falls under this category? Also the weapon permit is, as far as I know, subject to a rather heavy control routine which college ID does not.

In other words – it sounds like cherry picking while it is not, or am I missing something here?

It also states that "young voters trend liberal". I do not dispute or confirm this in any way but think there might should be a source for such a claim. Actually, the ref "13", is dead.

Warumwarum (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that colleges are also required to authenticate the identity of their students in much the same way, and for state schools is quite literally a state issued ID that is considered acceptable for alcohol sales, for example. Selethor (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Parts of the article seems biased

"On June 23, 2012, Pennsylvania's Speaker of the House, Republican Mike Turzai stated that Pennsylvania's recent voter identification law would "allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win Pennsylvania"[24] in the 2012 U.S. Presidential election.[25][26]"

Yes he did say that, but it was in reference to the law helping to keep illegal voters away from the polls. I think there has to be a more neutral way to post that quote instead of making it sound one-sided.70.178.26.108 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how directly and accurately quoting someone is biased. I could understand if his words were taken out of context, but if you listen to the speech, the context doesn't yield any further meaning. Did Turzai say at the time that it was in reference to illegal voters? — goethean ॐ 00:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The context of Turzai's remarks was not in reference to "keeping illegal voters away from the polls." He was "bragging" about accomplishments Republican legislators had made. The full quote: "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/eve-supreme-court-healthcare-ruling?newsfeed=true) Meanwhile, before going to court this week to defend the law in a suit brought by the ACLU, the state conceded it had no cases of voter ID fraud it can point to. Allreet (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On the larger point - bias - the article includes legitimately sourced information that randomly favors one side or the other on various aspects of the voter ID issue. This has occurred in good faith. The over-arching problem is that voter ID is an extremely complex issue that cannot be addressed in a building block fashion. Counterpoints are going to be missed, but more importantly, so are central issues and key developments. Allreet (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Brennan Center

Why is the Heritage foundation labelled as conservative yet the Brennan Center isn't labelled as liberal? And isn't the Brennan Center also part of the litigation on this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.108.61 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the article is biased to the Left. Welcome to Wikipedia. --66.87.2.188 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So, fix it! ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just that Heritage is not a very credible source, whereas Brennan is. Selethor (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Voter ID Laws in the United States"

This article is really mostly about US voter ID laws, and the US portion of the article to should be extracted out ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There...done. ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's actually *not* just about U.S. voter ID laws. Guy1890 (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The displayed USA map is inaccurate & needs to be changed

Neither VT nor WY has a voter ID law. I believe the same in true in DC. http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx Can someone fix the displayed map for Voter ID laws? Guy1890 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Change to "Voter identification laws"

Shouldn't we spell out the word "identification"? Calling it "ID" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

I don't see how "Voter ID law critics in the United States claim that proponents of Voter ID laws want the laws to keep certain—mostly lower economic class—voters from the polls" can be considered 'neutral'? The edit war proclamation/warning is little more than an attempt to keep uncited and opinion-based claims intact on this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeph1 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Voter Identification laws → Voter identification laws – per MOS:CAPITALIZATION, no evidence that "identification" is a proper name or in need of capitalization. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like someone moved all these similar articles from "Voter ID laws" and just kept the capital I. Station1 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support in intro already uses lower case anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support, not controversial and could just be moved. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support and speedy close. This (and the other two articles) should have just been moved as a technical request. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page seems to have been subject to malicious attempts to alter information in order to present a partisan viewpoint in the US regarding the voter ID requirements of other countries around the world.

I and others have had to revert changes that directly flipped the state of reality regarding voter ID laws in, in my case, Germany, and in another notable example, Australia, where the laws cited were in direct contravention to the edits subsequent users made to the page. Germany for example does not require voter ID if presenting a voter notification document, and the edit changed this page to falsely state that it does. Similarly, with Australia, the link directly contravened what a later user changed this page to say. I think this should be more closely examined for edit protection. Selethor (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)