ACE

Author: Ariana Harpavat

  • Pros and Cons of Voter ID Laws

    Pros and Cons of Voter ID Laws

    Introduction

    Before 2006, U.S. states did not require voter identification at the polls; it was only necessary when registering to vote. However, Indiana introduced a law in 2006 mandating ID at the polls, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, ruling that securing elections justified the requirement, provided the laws were neutral and did not significantly burden voters. Following this and the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which overturned a key section of the Voting Rights Act, thirty-six states have implemented varying degrees of voter ID laws. Meanwhile, fourteen states and Washington D.C. still allow voting without ID.

    Across the country, states employ two types of voter ID laws: strict and nonstrict. Under strict voter ID laws, voters who cannot present acceptable identification—driver’s license, state-issued identification card, military ID, tribal ID, etc.—are only allowed to vote on a provisional ballot and must return to the election office with identification for their vote to count. Non-strict laws allow voters without acceptable ID to cast a ballot without additional steps. In the last year, seven states passed laws making voter identification requirements stricter.

    Arguments in Favor

    Support for voter ID laws is often fueled by concerns over voter fraud. A 2013 poll of 906 U.S. adults found that 43% believed voter fraud to be relatively common, and a 2010 poll showed over 80% of respondents supporting some form of ID requirement at the polls. Advocates of strict voter ID laws, like Texas Governor Greg Abbott, frequently emphasize voter fraud to justify these measures. Abbott has publicly stated, “Voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter ID is one way to prevent cheating and ensure integrity in the electoral system,” reinforcing the perceived necessity and effectiveness of voter ID laws.

    Supporters of voter ID laws argue that these regulations affect both political parties equally. A 2023 study revealed that voter ID laws mobilize supporters from both major parties, ultimately neutralizing any significant impact on election outcomes. Republicans frequently cite this point to demonstrate that the laws do not disproportionately benefit them but are aimed at ensuring election security for all parties involved.

    Arguments Against

    Opponents of strict voter ID laws argue that they disproportionately affect minority, low-income, and elderly populations. Statistics show that 13% of Black Americans lack proper voter identification, compared to just 5% of white Americans. Additionally, new voter ID laws could potentially disenfranchise ten million Latino Americans. The costs of acquiring the required IDs range from $75 to $175, not including the additional transportation expenses. In rural areas, some citizens must travel over a hundred miles to obtain the necessary identification, further highlighting the discriminatory impact of these laws.

    Critics of strict voter ID laws argue that they address a virtually non-existent issue, as voter ID fraud rates are exceedingly low. A 2017 report estimated the rate of voter fraud to range between 0.0003% and 0.0025%, including all types of voter fraud such as clerical errors and issues with mail-in voting, not solely those related to identification. Thus, the rate of fraud specifically tied to voter IDs is even less than 0.0025%. For instance, in the 2020 Georgia election, where nine million votes were counted, only one fraud case was reported, and it did not involve voter ID fraud. Opponents maintain that these laws fail to enhance election security and instead serve to disenfranchise specific voter groups.

    Future Developments

    Maintaining a secure election process is essential for the functioning of democracy, and steps should be taken to ensure that the integrity of the voting process is maintained. However, policymakers must do this without disenfranchising voters from minority and low-income groups. As these laws become more prevalent, it will be essential to continue to observe the impacts of the legislation on voter turnout and vote concentration.

  • Pros and Cons of TX SB1933

    Pros and Cons of TX SB1933

    Introduction

    Since 2022, legislatures nationwide have been passing legislation to secure election processes. In 2023, eleven states passed voting laws that make voting more restrictive to ensure the integrity of the election process. One of these laws is Texas’s Senate Bill 1933. The 2023 bill allows the Secretary of State to control an election within counties with a population of over four million contingent on someone filing a complaint against the election processes. However, Harris County is the only county in Texas with a population of over 4 million. Thus, it is the only county that qualifies under this bill. Although Harris County had notable issues in the 2022 election cycle, which caused it to be singled out, there are arguments that the legislation is politically targeted.  

    Arguments in Favor

    In an audit conducted by Texas’s Secretary of State, Harris County was found to have issues with ballot distributions, equipment issues, incomplete paperwork, and insufficient training, among other problems. With over ten thousand election irregularities in the primary and general elections 2022, the legislature saw cause for concern. By creating a process for intervention, proponents of the bill claim that the election process will be more secure, restoring voter confidence in the election process. Proponents also point out that there are requirements for the Secretary of State to be able to take control of the election. There must be a “good cause” with a pattern of issues in the election process. In the event of malfunctioning equipment, uncounted votes, or voting registration issues, the Secretary of State will notify the county election authority to conduct an intervention. If this intervention proceeds, the Secretary of State will eventually take charge of the election process. 

    Additionally, the law should deter partisan advantages. Some people think the election rules in 2020, like accommodations for mail-in ballots, were changed to benefit Democrats rather than to protect against the spread of COVID-19. In case of a claim like this, the SB 1933 will allow the Secretary of State of Texas to investigate and prevent such an occurrence. Much opposition to SB 1933 comes from the fact that, when put into practice, it could increase barriers to voting, such as ID restrictions and the prevention of mail-in voting. However, in analyzing election legislation across states that impose barriers to voting, Politico summarized that restrictions and expansions of voting laws do not create exaggerated impacts; instead, the turnout for voting, both Republican and Democrat, remains largely the same, eliminating any partisan advantage. This finding maintains that SB 1933’s impact would not lower voter turnout to the extent that the opposition claims. 

    Arguments Against

    Arguments against SB 1933 lie in the demographics of Harris County. 44.6% of Harris County is Hispanic, and 20.6% is African American, making it one of the most diverse counties in the state. Furthermore, Harris County is one of the largest democratic strongholds in Texas. Because the bill was passed by a Republican majority legislature, in conjecture, these demographic trends raise questions about the partisan bias in the bill. In the event of a takeover by the Secretary of State – a Republican – could make it harder for voting to take place, preventing largely Democratic votes from being counted. Opponents of the bill believe that if the Secretary of State could take over the election process, they would take subsequent steps to suppress democratic voters – who in Harris County are citizens in minority groups.

    Moreover, because the threshold for intervention in the “good cause” claim is vague, opponents argue it can be easily abused. If the Secretary of State finds a reason to take over the election, the oversight can last up to two years until the problems are resolved. If election control is maintained by the state, especially for long periods of time, there is a question of whether the election process would remain nonpartisan. Since someone from the Republican party generally holds the Secretary of State position, their oversight of elections in a largely Democratic county means they could change policy to make it less favorable to a specific demographic of voters. This possible policy change could manifest with restrictions on early voting, mail-in ballots, and absentee voting – all impacting democratic voter turnout.

    Future Developments

    Laws aimed at securing the election process, such as SB 1933, are going through various state legislatures. However, in analyzing these policies, answering whether the laws truly secure the election process or if they disenfranchise a group of voters is essential. SB 1933 has much debate on both sides; however, one thing is known: the next election in Harris County will be markedly different than the prior ones.

  • Ariana Harpavat, University of Texas at Austin

    Ariana Harpavat, University of Texas at Austin

    Ariana, currently a junior at the University of Texas at Austin, is actively pursuing a dual degree in Economics and Government, along with a Distinguished Scholars Certificate in the Liberal Arts Honors Program. Her diverse experiences, include being a legislative aid, research assistant, and serving as a student associate. All of these have all fostered a profound passion for policy and giving back to the community. Previous internships with the University of Texas System and the Texas Senate further developed her understanding of policy, particularly igniting an interest in election policy and the legislative process. Engaging in data analysis during her research endeavors has deepened her insight into the intricacies of policy problem-solving and gives her a unique outlook on many problems facing our nation. Her interests extend to educational inequality, economic policy, and reproductive health. Beyond her academic and professional pursuits, Ariana dedicates her time to volunteering for nonprofits, mentoring fellow students across campus, and managing a cooking instagram account. 

    Linkedin