A proposed voter identification law in Kentucky
The National Conference of State Legislatures keeps good track of the varying voter identification laws in the states. Such laws continue to make their way through the states, with tweaks or alterations to existing ones, and new ones elsewhere. Kentucky is the latest to push for a new voter identification law.
I’m pretty apathetic on the merits of voter identification laws. My best read of the existing political science literature is that they typically have marginal, if any, effects on preventing (or discouraging) voter fraud; raising public confidence in the electoral system; or deterring otherwise-eligible voters from casting a vote. (There are some studies to the contrary that I’m less than persuaded by—for a host of reasons left for other posts and beside the point of this one!)
It’s a reason why I argued in the Washburn Law Journal a few years ago that we ought to reach some kind of equilibrium in voter identification laws—acknowledging their presence and continuing presence while considering things that could mitigate concerns against them, the way we handled voter registration when it was a “new” idea over a hundred years ago.
Not all voter identification laws face the same kind of controversy. For instance, voter identification laws were enacted in South Carolina and Georgia, even when Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required preclearance of such laws, because the laws did not unduly burden the right to vote.
Professor Josh Douglas has an argument in this vein in a recent op-ed. While he is strongly opposed to voter identification laws, he nevertheless argues for considering how to tweak proposed legislation to minimize the concerns about it.
I imagine we’ll see continued rise of voter identification laws, and continued tweaks to the system to minimize the disruption on voters.