Voter ID Laws and their Impact on Voter Turnout

An essay submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for graduation from the

Honors College at the College of Charleston

with a Bachelor of Arts in

Communication and Political Science

Caroline Kenny

May 2015

Dr. Namjin Lee Dr. Gibbs Knotts

Advisor: Secondary Reader:

 Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Review of Literature………………………………………………………………………………8

Factors Influencing Voter Turnout……………………………………………………….8

Voter ID Laws……………………………………………………………………………14

Research Question and Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………..18

Method…………………………………………………………………………………………...21

Results……………………………………………………………………………………………24

Qualitative Interviews……………………………………………………………………24
American National Election Study data………………………………………………….28
Pew Research Center Poll………………………………………………………………..33

Discussion & Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..35

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………42
Figure 1…………………………………………………………………………………..42
Figure 2…………………………………………………………………………………..43
Figure 3…………………………………………………………………………………..44
Figure 4…………………………………………………………………………………..45
Table 1…………………………………………………………………………………...46
Table 2…………………………………………………………………………………...47
Table 3…………………………………………………………………………………...48
Table 4…………………………………………………………………………………...49

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………..50

  2  
 Abstract

This research examines the effects of recently implemented voter identification laws in

several states around the United States of America and their impact on voter turnout rates. Voter

identification laws were ruled constitutional in the Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion

County (2008) and since then, many states have established their own form of voter

identification laws and mandated what forms of identification would be acceptable at the polling

place. This Bachelor’s Essay study examines whether voter turnout rates become lower after the

implementation of voter identification laws and if so, what groups of voters are affected most by

these laws. In order to examine this questions and I conducted qualitative in-depth interviews

around the 2014 midterm election. In addition, I analyzed two nationally representative large-

scale survey data sets: the 2012 American National Election Studies and the 2012 Pew Research

Center poll from September 12-16, 2012. In particular, my analysis compared between the voter

turnout rates in years before the implementation of voter identification laws and those after the

implementation to examine the differences, if any. The research then examines whether the

adoption of voter ID regulations affects turnout across racial and ethnic groups. My results offer

evidence for the belief that minority turnout is uniquely affected by voter ID regulations and it is

disproportionate compared to majority groups as well as people in states unaffected by this law.

  3  
 Introduction

“Turning out to vote is the most common and important act citizens take in a democracy

and, therefore, is one of the most important behaviours for scholars of democratic politics to

understand. And yet, it is not well understood.”

(Aldrich 1993:246)

In a democracy, the vote of the citizenry is tantamount to the voice of the people. Most

citizens in a democracy rightfully take pride in the fact that no matter how privileged or

seemingly disadvantaged someone is, each person’s vote counts equally. There are countless

factors that can influence voter turnout, such as electoral competitiveness, election type, voting

laws, and demographics of the voters (Tenn, 2005; Uhlaner, Cain, & Kiewiet, 1989; Wolfinger

& Rosenstone, 1980 Levine & Lopez, 2002). Despite the efforts that have been enacted by the

government to ensure that all citizens have the right to vote, certain legislature and tradition have

led to differences in turnout rates amongst different demographic groups. When voter turnout is

discussed in public it is often treated as a civic obligation, rather than a means to advance

individual interests (McElwee, 2014).

Voting gives the public a voice. When only a small percentage of citizens register to vote

and then an even smaller number of them actually turn out on Election Day, it means that the

majority is not being heard because not everyone is using their voice that is granted to them by

the United States Constitution. General election voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the

lowest it has been in any election cycle since World War II (DelReal, 2014). Just 36.4 percent of

the voting-eligible population cast ballots, continuing a steady decline in midterm voter

participation that has spanned several decades. These turnout rates are clearly lower than most

other democratic nations in the world, but not surprising, as participation has been dropping

  4  
since the 1964 election, when voter turnout was at nearly 49 percent (DelReal, 2014). The last

time voter turnout was so low during a midterm cycle was in 1942, when only 33.9 percent of

eligible voters cast ballots (DelReal, 2014).

Some scholars claim that people vote because they receive satisfaction from the fact that

they are utilizing their voice to influence the political landscape (Gerber, Green & Shachar,

2003). Even if registration efforts are time consuming and costly, the sense of satisfaction felt as

a result of voting makes up for any deficit the citizen may encounter (Gerber, Green & Shachar,

2003). The more motivation or ability a person has to vote, the more likely he or she is to turn

out on a given election day. And the more difficult voting is for him or her, the less likely the

person is to vote. Thus, a citizen’s turnout behavior is likely to be a combination of these three

classes of causes.

Motivation to vote can come from a strong preference for one candidate over his or her

competitors. But motivation can also come from the belief that being a responsible citizen

requires that a person vote, or from pressure from one’s friends, neighbors or family to vote. The

ability to vote refers to people’s capacity to make sense of information about political events and

candidates in order to form a candidate preference and the capacity to understand and meet

requirements for eligibility to vote legally and to implement the required behavior to cast a ballot

(Harder & Krosnick, 2008). Difficulty refers to the conditions a voter may encounter when

attempting to register to vote or cast a ballot. Some of these include the strictness of procedures

regulating registration, the convenience of registration procedures, the degree to which polling

locations are publicized, the physical closeness of a person’s polling location to his or her home,

the availability of information about the candidates (Haspel & Knotts, 2005; Hasen, 2013).

  5  
 Another potential difficulty aspect of voting that a citizen can face is the recent

implementation of state laws across the country mandating that voters show a certain form of

photo identification at the polls. Poll taxes and literacy tests were among the many

discriminatory laws that were enforced to keep African Americans from voting (Ellis, 2009). In

an effort to tear down these historical barriers and to protect the guarantee that the right to vote is

not denied “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” on August 6, 1965,

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

Voter ID laws are laws that require some form of identification, usually with a

photograph, in order to voter or to receive a ballot for an election. Today in the United States,

voter ID laws are in place in 34 states, and that number is rising rapidly. Recently, there have

been a number of cases where people who have been voting in elections for years have been

stopped at the polls for the first time ever simply because their registered name does not match

their license or they lack a photo identification card. In the case Crawford v. Marion County

Election Board (2008) in Indiana, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the

constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate

state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence

(Trotter, 2013). The majority of the Court decided that the burdens that might arise from voter

identification laws would not prove to be significant and while some may be more disadvantaged

than others, these laws were not unconstitutional. Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsberg,

issues a dissent stating that an indigent individual might still incur travel costs to acquire the

requisite identification and would still have to pay for the birth certificate required to obtain such

identification. Such costs could be prohibitive to poor, old, or disabled voters. Moreover, while

  6  
these travel costs would not amount to a severe burden, Justice Souter argued that such burdens

disproportionately impacted the poor, the old, and the immobile (Trotter, 2013).

Since January 1, 2013, the acceptable forms of identification for voting at the polls in

South Carolina are state- or federally-issued photo IDs, such as South Carolina drivers’ licenses’,

South Carolina DMV-issued ID cards, South Carolina Voter Registrations cards with photos,

U.S. passports and military identification cards (Underhill, 2015). In other states that have a

Voter ID law, other forms of identification may qualify, including a concealed handgun license

or citizenship photo identification (Liptak, 2014). Forms of identification that do not count

include university identification cards and Indian tribe identification cards (Liptak, 2014).

According to voter registration laws, college students may register to vote where they reside

while attending college (Brennan Center for Justice, 2010). However, their university-issued

photo identification is not accepted in many states, and for out-of-state students, this is often the

only form of identification that states their residency in that state.

The goal of my research is to explore how voter ID laws impact voter turnout and if they

do in fact discourage voting from certain groups of citizens. This study seeks to present a

multifaceted look at many different ways in which Voter ID laws can influence voting. Through

both quantitative and qualitative methods, I gauge how students residing in Charleston, South

Carolina feel about the law and understand if this law did or did not inhibit their voting patterns

or dissuade them from turning out to the polls. I also analyze turnout numbers from the past

several elections and decipher how, if at all, voter identification laws that were enacted during

the span of the election affected turnout. By analyzing my own qualitative interview data as well

as two nationally representative large-scale survey data sets (2012 American National Election

Studies and the 2012 Pew Research Center poll entitled “Obama Ahead with Stronger Support

  7  
Better Image and Lead on Most Issues”), this study attempt to deepen our understanding of how

this law effects college students, how this law is publicized to students and the impact it has on

voter turnout.

Review of Literature

Despite the fact that every citizen of the United States is guaranteed the right to vote by

the Constitution, only a small percentage of people turn out to the polls during an election. What

makes these people turn out as opposed to others, and why are they choosing to vote? Several

factors come into play when considering how likely a person is to vote. These can include

everything from their age to their education level to their partisan identification. In addition,

outside elements can affect voting turnout, including the competitiveness of the election at hand

as well as the people running for office.

Factors Influencing Voter Turnout

Partisan identification. Traditional schools of thought offer some of the most valuable

insight into voting patterns and turnout rates. One of the oldest and most commonly referenced

scholars is Paul Lazarsfeld and his work in Voting, which became known as the Columbia

School of Thought. Lazarsfeld and his colleagues (1954) determined through their studies that

family is the main source of political partisanship and that when deciding how to vote, the

decision takes place within a social context. People prefer friends and co-workers that reinforce

our existing biases. Moreover, families tend to have similar views, further reinforcing one

another's views. In addition, mass media generally reinforces existing biases due to selective

media consumption. Thus, all campaigns do is bring you back to your original views--they don't

change your views, they just reinforce them. Campaign communications don't change minds;

they attempt to reinforce pre-existing views.

  8  
 When determining which political party to identify with, statistics from Lazarsfeld in his

1954 piece entitled Voting show that we inherit partisanship from our families, especially when

we are young voters. The inheritance is strongest when you have the same SES and religion as

your parents. Children who achieve a higher status than their parents move Republican. Among

adults living in the same home, voting homogeneity tops 90% (Lazarsfeld et al., 1954). Also, it

was concluded that in the political off times, most political talk takes place at home as opposed

to public venues. When we do talk with friends or co-workers, we mostly talk only with people

like us in age, occupation, and political preference, because people would have their opinions

supported rather than debated. So in conclusion, the researchers found that since people talk

about politics with others like them the majority of the time and that homogeneity strengthens

political beliefs, it makes sense that strong political majorities, like a commonly held belief in a

certain family or religious group, perpetuate themselves.

A few years later, the Michigan School came to the forefront of voting pattern literature

when Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes wrote The American

Voter (1960). These authors went against what Lazarsfeld and his colleagues held to be true and

stated that social group memberships have little direct impact on the voting decision. They

maintained that most voters cast their ballots primarily on the basis of partisan identification,

rather than social group affiliation. Another conclusion made in Campbell et al. was that issue

orientation and candidate orientation matter and can differ from partisan identification. These

factors depend on each individual election and the candidates/issues at hand, unlike partisan

identification, which holds steady year after year. However, party identification in turn affects

issue orientation and candidate orientation as well as having a direct effect on the voting

  9  
decision. According to the authors, these three key items all tie together and play a significant

role in shaping a person’s tendency to turn out and vote.

When it comes to linking partisanship and turnout, a number of studies can be examined.

The main argument for the claim that high turnout helps Democrats by increasing the

representativeness of the constituency can be best described by using Burnham’s (1965)

adaptation of ideas first offered by Campbell et al. (1960) in The American Voter. The American

political makeup can be thought of as a series of three separate concentric circles. These include

core voters, occasional voters, and perpetual nonvoters. As a person moves from the center circle

to a periphery circle, the proportion that identify with the Democratic party increases, since low

participation is correlated with low socioeconomic status (Verba and Nie, 1972), and the

Democrats are the traditional champions of the poor and underprivileged. Since core voters

always participate, any increase in turnout is attributed to a rise in participation by occasional

voters and usual nonvoters who supposedly disproportionately identify with the Democratic

Party. Therefore, a high turnout should help the Democrats by making the electorate more

representative of the population as a whole when a higher than usual proportion of customarily

low turnout Democratic identifiers come to the polls. When more people turnout, it tends to

favor the Democratic party (Grofman, Owen & Collet, 1999).

The ideas presented by Grofman, Owen & Collet (1999) come into play when

considering the measures that Republicans have enacted over the years, especially voter

identification laws, that can be considered a method to decrease turnout amongst Democrats,

who are more represented in this country at present time and less likely to possess the proper

photo identification permitted by state legislatures to vote at the polls (Barreto, Nuno & Sanchez,

2009; Alvarez, Bailey, & Katz, 2008). This idea will be examined further later on in this study.

  10  
 Another key study to look at is An Economic Theory of Democracy (Downs, 1957). In

this work, the cost and benefits of turning out to vote are explained and examined thoroughly.

Downs states that voting is costly, not only because of the information costs such as doing

thorough research and being politically aware to cast an educated vote that would benefit the

personal voter, but also because of the physical costs of driving or getting to the polling place

and taking time off work to do so, because polls are typically open during work hours (Downs,

1957). This leads to an assumption that rational voters will rarely turn out to vote because the

costs are just too much, as it can be literally costly by using gas, public transportation, or taking

time off of work. The benefits of turning out can be understood in terms of the party differential,

where the party that one would vote for would provide more things and opportunities for the

voter, such as lower taxes or less business regulation. But these benefits are weighted by the

extremely low probability that one vote will determine the outcome, which never happens. As

such, even small voting costs make turnout irrational (Downs, 1957).

Education. Education is also an important predictor of voter turnout. Education may

convey skills that enhance a person’s capacity to understand how the civic process operates and

how to navigate the requirements of registration. Education could also encourage people to vote

by instilling civic duty, educating them in the political process, or placing them in social

scenarios in which voting is commonplace (Nagler, 1991). The more a person’s educational

attainment exceeds that of the people in his or her neighborhood, the more likely he or she is to

vote (Nagler, 1991). Similarly, the more a person’s education attainment exceeds that of others

in his or her age group, the more likely he or she is to vote (Tenn, 2005).

The correlation between educational attainment and voting is consistently found in past

research, and usually survives controls for other demographic variables (Verba, Schlozman &

  11  
Brady, 1995). Sondheimer and Green (2010) say that this relationship has been found in

“literally thousands of cross-sectional surveys” since 1924. For example, in the 2008 election,

the turnout of young people who had completed even one college course was 26 percentage

points higher than that of their peers who had never attended college (Kirby & Kawashima-

Ginsberg, 2009).

Overall, people with more education vote at significantly higher rates. This probably

reflects more than just the effects of education itself; it may also reflect social advantages that are

often afforded to those who are able to attend college. Nevertheless, the multitude of evidence

suggests that increasing someone’s education would, by itself, increase the chance that he or she

will vote.

Race. Traditionally, Caucasian people have voted at higher rates than some other racial

groups (Uhlaner, Cain, & Kiewiet, 1989). Voter turnout among African Americans has been

relatively low, ever since they were universally allowed the right to vote in the middle of the 20th

century. During the 1950s and 1960s, African American turnout increased sharply because of

relaxed discriminatory voter registration laws, increased feelings of efficacy due to the civil

rights movement, and increased mobilization efforts by political parties in large part thanks to

the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1993). However, African Americans

have similar, or often even higher, turnout than Whites after controlling for education and

income (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980).

Lower turnout among African Americans might arise, in part, too, because of intentional

efforts to minimize mass participation in areas of racial diversity. Historical records clearly

documents Whites’ intentional efforts to demobilize Blacks by adopting more restrictive and

sometimes hostile procedures relating to voter turnout, including literacy tests, poll taxes and Jim

  12  
Crow Laws (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1993). This can most commonly be seen in the South.

Even where the most egregious of such efforts have been outlawed by federal statutory law and

Supreme Court rulings, vestiges of their effects may remain in state law, political party activities,

and even mass socialization (Hill & Leighley, 1999).

Age. The electoral participation of Americans under the age of 25 has declined since

1972, when 18-to-21-year-olds were first permitted to vote (Levine & Lopez, 2002). Concerning

the issue of age, education and race often come into play and directly affect the turnout rate. As

discussed above, Whites tend to vote at higher rates than Blacks and the more educated tend to

turn out to vote far more often than those lacking a college education. Levine & Lopez found that

young people with more education are more likely to vote, connecting these two variables

(Levine & Lopez, 2002). Students in college are newly able to vote at age 18 and by starting

early, they can form a habit and continue to vote throughout their lifetime due to a feeling of

civic obligation, as explained in the habit section below. However, voter registration laws often

do not favor college students and can sometimes impede on their right to vote where they live

and go to school (Levine & Lopez, 2002).

Habit. Voting is a habitual behavior. It has been proven that voting once increases the

likelihood of voting again (Gerber, Green, & Shachar, 2003). There are several possible reasons

for this phenomenon. First, the social and psychological forces that inspired voting the first time

may have enhanced impact directing future voting decisions (Gerber, Green, & Shachar). After

being successfully mobilized to vote once, a citizen may attract repeated mobilization efforts at

the times of subsequent elections such as phone calls and canvassers, reinforcing a sense of civic

responsibility (Goldstein & Ridout, 2002). Voting may feel rewarding, and the social and

psychic rewards one enjoys after voting once may be memorable and motivating at the times of

  13  
following elections (Gerber, Green, & Shachar, 2003). Voting once could change a person’s self-

perception into one of an active, civically engaged individual. By voting once, a voter might

realize the ease of doing it and may therefore be less inhibited from doing it again.

Residence. Unlike most citizens, students who go away to college might claim to reside

in either of two places, often in two different states if they attend college outside of their home

state. Potentially, then, they are presented with the opportunity to choose in which of two

jurisdictions to register and vote. According to Niemi, Hammer and Jackson, 2009, there remains

substantial ambiguity regarding federal and state laws as they apply to the registration of college

students in their college towns. As a result of this ambiguity, communities vary enormously in

their approaches to voting by college students. Laws and administrative interpretations range

from a nearly complete absence of restrictions to not-very-subtle efforts to discourage all such

transient registrations (Niemi, Hammer, & Jackson).. The 1970 amendments to the Voting Rights

Act declared that citizens could not be denied the right to vote for president and vice-president

because of any durational residency requirement (Niemi, Hammer, & Jackson). This change was

premised on the idea that individuals do not have to know about the state or local area in which

they live to vote knowledgeably for president.

Niemi, Hammer and Jackson (2009) also state that South Carolina represents an

interesting case of unclear law resulting in inconsistency, sometimes even within a single

election office. The definition of domicile in the state code, as shown in Display 5 of the

Appendix, relies on the frequently used concept that residency requires the “present intention”

not to leave one’s declared home. That language is ambiguous on whether long-term residency

is required. Succinct and apparently clear information on student registration can be found on

the South Carolina Election Commission web site. Under the heading “Students,” it says:

  14  
 “Students may register to vote where they reside while attending college.” (South Carolina

Election Commission, 2007).

While there are few reported instances of college students being denied from registering

at their college address, Niemi, Hammer and Jackson (2009) conclude that variation across

states, across local jurisdictions, and even across officials in the same place suggest the need for

greater clarity in the laws concerning voter registration policies. This is especially so where

ambiguity in terms (such as intent to stay) can lead to confusions and misinterpretations

depending on circumstance, leading to official decision in an area where there should be little

local right to make voting more difficult for some than for others (Niemi, Hammer and Jackson).

Voter ID Laws

In addition to the aforementioned factors, Voter ID laws can influence voting, turnout

and elections in numerous ways. The literature is inconclusive about the extent to which voter ID

rules in particular affect voter turnout, most likely due to the fact that voter ID laws are still a

recent phenomenon that only began to be enacted in a small number of states for the first time in

2008. Whereas Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz (2008) showed voter ID rules depress turnout among

low socioeconomic individuals, Erikson and Minnite (2009); Mycoff, Wagner, and Wilson

(2009); and Vercellotti and Anderson (2009) found no evidence that voter ID laws have any

clear effect. This discrepancy is common in the literature concerning voter ID laws. Due to the

fact that Voter ID laws are still a recent phenomenon, only being introduced for the first time in

2007, not much literature is available to look at.

Additionally, many of these studies do not specifically examine whether blacks and

Latinos are uniquely affected by voting rules (Alvarez, Bailey, & Katz 2008). General

differences in turnout between minorities and whites have been explained with other individual-

  15  
level characteristics that are correlated with race as well as with contextual factors (Cassel 2002).

Even if ID requirements are enforced in a nondiscriminatory manner, which studies suggest is

not the case (Cobb, Greiner, & Quinn 2012), minorities are still less likely to possess required

forms of identification (Barreto, Nuño, & Sanchez 2007).

An interesting aspect of voter ID laws is the fact that their implementation is up to poll

workers on Election Day. Studies show that poll worker discrimination is prevalent and often

targets certain racial and gender groups (Atkeson, Kereval, Alvarez & Hall, 2014). Poll workers

are “street level bureaucrats” who bear the burden of implementing the Voter ID laws mandated

by the state. Many of these poll workers are temporary employees who volunteer their time

strictly for Election Day and are not all trained uniformly, but they have authority, discretion and

autonomy (Atkeson, et al, 2014). The complexity of the voter ID law in each state is likely to

influence the level of poll-worker discretion. Atkeson et al.found that poll workers tend to rely

on their own attitudes and beliefs rather than the law and their training and can thus deny equal

access to the voting booth by only asking for ID from certain people who they choose to ask, as

opposed to every one who walk in the door at their polling place (Atkeson, et al, 2014).

Since Voter ID laws are a somewhat recent phenomenon, many scholars examined

whether notifications of these laws influence voter turnout. Citrin, Green and Levy (2014) found

that apprising low-propensity voters of a new identification requirement raised turnout by

approximately one percentage point. Messages providing details about ID requirements and

offering to help recipients attain acceptable ID appeared to be more successful than messages

only indicating the need to bring a proper, acceptable form of identification to the polls on

Election Day (Citrin, Green & Levy). This study was performed in heavily African-American

precincts in Roanoke, Virginia and Knoxville, Tennessee through Get Out the Vote direct

  16  
mailings. Overall, the authors of the study found no evidence that voter identification

requirements deter people from voting.

Certain negative literature and notification can, however, discourage turnout. For

instance, those notification messages that provide little information about the nature of the new

requirement can potentially depress turnout. When voters are made newly aware of the costs of

compliance, they may take away that it is difficult to obtain an ID. In addition, they might be led

to believe that the identification documents that they already possess may not be sufficient under

the new law. Notification messages can cause anxiety about possible hostile scrutiny at the polls

and can trigger discomfort of having to defend their eligibility in a room full of voters and poll

workers. References to penalties can exacerbate this tendency. Mentioning “voter fraud” or a

punishment for partaking in fraud in communications about voter ID laws can appear threatening

(Citrin, Green & Levy, 2014).

“Billboards in Pennsylvania, displayed even after the state’s photo ID law was enjoined
for the 2012 election, displayed the slogan ‘‘SI QUIERES VOTAR, MUESTRALA’’
(‘‘If you want to vote, show it’’) and featured a woman with a stern expression holding
up a driver’s ‘‘Got ID?’’ public outreach campaign could be taken as a light-hearted way
of engaging voters via a well- known advertising slogan but also might seem ominous to
those wondering whether they have the proper ID and what might happen to them if they
attempt to vote without it” (p. 230).

The above quote from Citrin, Green and Levy signifies that even though some advertisements or

notification methods intend to be light-hearted or engaging, they can be a severe turn-off to

uncomfortable voters unfamiliar with the law or are worried about having the proper

identification.

As seen in the study above from Citrin, Green and Levy, communication regarding voter

ID laws may be an important factors in encouraging or discouraging voter turnout. Presenting

  17  
content in a positive tone and framing the message in an informative and helpful manner as

opposed to a threatening or discouraging fashion may potentially overcome the aversive

outcomes that can result. The mailings sent out by Citrin, Green and Levy’s (2014) study were

entitled “Help” mailings and provided details about what is needed to vote and where to obtain

assistance. This mailing, from a theoretical standpoint, reduced psychological costs that voters

may experience from a mere notification. In addition to simply giving directions, their Help

mailing provided encouragement and indicated that there are resources available to help (Citrin,

Green & Levy, 2014). They found that the “Help” mailing increased turnout, while the negative

mailings did the opposite, but concluded that more research needed to be done

Studies are still rare concerning voter identification laws, since their implementation is

fairly recent. Even this small number of studies on the impact of voter ID laws on voter turnout

provides only inconclusive and often conflicting findings. However, recent research has begun to

examine that minorities tend to be impacted the most by these laws and in disproportionate

numbers (Cobb, Greiner, & Quinn 2012) The present study seeks to contribute to this emerging

scholarship by focusing on the impact of the implementation of these laws on voter turnout,

especially among college students.

Research Question and Hypotheses

As discussed above, the research on voter identification laws and their effect on voter

turnout tends to be inconclusive and sometimes conflicting in terms of the nature of such effect.

Whereas some say turnout is not impacted (Erikson & Minnite, 2009) Mycoff, Wagner, &

Wilson, 2009; and Vercellotti & Anderson, 2009), others disagree and claim that voter ID laws

suppress turnout (Alvarez, Bailey, & Katz, 2008; Barreto, Nuño, & Sanchez, 2007; Atkeson,

Kereval, Alvarez & Hall, 2014). Through reading these studies, I saw the evidence provided in

  18  
the research that supported the belief that voter ID laws suppress turnout to be more prevalent

and impactful. Not only do people get turned away from the polls if they show up with an

improper or unacceptable form of photo identification, many are deterred from even trying to

vote and decline to show up at the polls due to the chance that they might not be able to vote and

it could be a waste of their time. In addition, some studies I came across in my research,

especially Alvarez, Bailey & Katz from 2008, showed that turnout rates decreased across the

country after implementing voter identification laws when comparing turnout rates from before

the implementation of the law and then from an election cycle after the implementation of the

laws for the first time. On the basis of existing research I described and explain above prior to

engaging in this study, I would hypothesize the following statement:

H1: Voter identification laws can negatively affect overall voter turnout and cause

turnout rates to decrease in states where voter ID laws are present as opposed to in states

where there are no voter ID laws

Some studies (Citrin, Green, & Levy, 2014) have shown that notification messages about

voter ID laws tend to be more negatively framed and more heavily carried out in areas where

minority populations reside. Also, poll workers can, at their own discretion, pick and choose

whom they ask for identification since they are the authority over the polling place. A study from

2014 demonstrated that there was evidence that poll workers, who are “state bureaucrats,” tended

to single out minority voters more often than majority voters to ask for identification at the polls

(Citrin, Green, & Levy, 2014). Although this certainly is not the case at every precinct and

polling place across the country, these occurrences demonstrate that voter ID laws can negatively

impact the turnout rate amongst minority voters. There are a number of studies that demonstrate

  19  
that minority groups turn out to vote in much lower rates than members of the majority race

(Uhlaner, Cain, & Kiewiet, 1989). Voter turnout among African Americans has been relatively

low, ever since they were universally allowed the right to vote in the middle of the 20th century,

considering the fact that their right to vote is much more recent than that of the majority. Lower

turnout among African Americans might also arise, because of deliberate energies to lessen mass

participation in areas of racial diversity. The voter ID law has been likened to poll taxes, literacy

tests, and other impediments to voting that place some groups, including minority groups, at a

disadvantage because of a lack of resources and information to obtain a proper identification

(Hill & Leighley, 1999). Thus, my hypothesis on this topic reads as follows:

H2: Groups that will be more negatively impacted will be minority groups and their

turnout rates will be lower in states and years when voter identification laws have been

enacted.

The electoral participation of Americans under the age of 25 has declined since 1972,

when 18-to-21-year-olds were first permitted to vote (Levine & Lopez, 2002) and that can be

reasoned by a number of items and concerns. Voter registration laws often do not favor college

students and can sometimes impede on their right to vote where they live and go to school

(Levine & Lopez, 2002). On a college campus, many students from out-of-state may face

troubles trying to get an in-state Driver’s License without proper documentation or residency

papers, and may find it difficult to get to a DMV if they do not have a car or lack time during

business hours due to class, work, activities and other engagements. Further, young people are

notorious for being unaware of current events and many call the young people of today as “lazy”

  20  
and “media-driven” (Livingstone, 2012) so their turnout rates might be lower due to some of

these factors. Therefore, I would hypothesize the following statement:

H3: Voter turnout amongst younger people will be negatively impacted by voter ID laws

due to the extra hurdles they must encounter concerning voter ID laws.

Voter ID laws are a very recent phenomenon in many states across the country. The 2012

election was the first time many had even heard of them, let alone be affected by them. By

conducting qualitative interviews with college students to gauge their perceptions and sentiments

about voter ID laws as well as consulting professional polls that asked about voter ID laws, I

attempt to look more in-depth at the public perception of this law and examine whether people

believe it will affect them, prove to be a hindrance, or know much about it at all. Because the

literature remains unclear about specific relationships between various individual and social

factors and individual opinions on these laws, I propose the following research question:

RQ1: What are the factors that influence people’s opinions on Voter ID law?

Method

My data came from three separate sources. I conducted qualitative interviews, analyzed

2008 and 2012 General Election surveys from the American National Election Survey, and

utilized a Pew Research Poll from September 2012.

Qualitative Interviews

  21  
 I conducted interviews with seven different college students at the College of Charleston

in Charleston, South Carolina during September and October of 2014. After receiving IRB

approval, I selected my student subjects to ensure a diverse range of ethnicities, residences,

voting patterns and political party identification. I found these students through the College of

Charleston Honors College, the College of Charleston Student Alumni Associates and the

College of Charleston George Street Residence Hall. I tried to balance the interviews between in-

state and out-of-state students to gauge different opinions and sentiments about voter ID laws,

but I tried to gauge as a whole the sentiment of young, college-aged students concerning their

thoughts and opinions on the law in the state of South Carolina. These interviews took place

before the 2014 Midterm Elections on November 4, 2014. All of the interviews took place face-

to-face in spots around the College of Charleston campus such as coffee shops, Addlestone

Library, and parks on and around campus. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed.

The content has not been shared with anyone except the researcher so as to preserve the

confidential answers provided by the interviewees and guaranteed by the IRB agreement. The

interviews were prefaced with information and details about my research and the content I would

be asking about.

I followed up with each of these students after the election to ask follow up questions

concerning their experience on Election Day at the polling place. I asked if they actually did end

up turning out, as well as if they were asked to show an ID and if so, what ID they showed the

poll worker. If they showed their ID and responded with a type of ID they showed, I asked if

they were questioned on their ID or, if they showed an ID that was not on the list of five

accepted in South Carolina, what the poll worker said or did; if they accepted it or asked for an

alternative form. Most of the students I interviewed had an experience at the polls completely

  22  
free of any issues, which is common. However, some of the students were very apprehensive

before heading to the polls after my interviews with them informed them of the voter ID laws if

they were unaware.

After conducting the follow-up interviews, I realized the problem with my method of data

collection and interviews. By conducting follow up interviews with the same students I pre-

interviewed before the election and before their trip to the polls, I informed them all about the

voter ID law through my interviews. For those students who were unaware of or unfamiliar with

the law at the time of our interview, they had time to prepare if necessary before heading to the

polls and obtain the proper form of identification. They were made aware of the law and its

requirements through my interview, so their outcomes and post-Election surveys were affected

by this newly-acquired knowledge.

2008 and 2012 American National Election Studies

Through using the Survey Documentation and Analysis website from the University of

California, Berkeley, I was able to utilize the 2008 and 2012 American National Election Study

(ANES) datasets. These datasets included a large number of questions concerning American

politics and elections and the responses of several thousand interviewees. Since there was no

question about Voter ID in these two survey datasets, I had to make my own variable through

recoding other variables to examine the effects of Voter ID laws on turnout. First, I separated the

states into two groups: states that had voter ID laws in effect and states that did not. Second, I

compared the turnout percentages in both 2008 and 2012 between the states that had Voter ID

laws and those that did not in order to gauge the effect the laws might have on turnout. Finally, I

used my newly formed variable of states that had voter ID law and states that did not have voter

ID law to compare turnout amongst certain demographics of people. The ANES study asks many

  23  
pre-election questions about demographics and I compared the turnout amongst minority versus

majority voters, young versus old voters, educated versus less-educated voters, rural versus

urban voters and wealthy versus poor voters.

Pew Research Center Survey

The final type of data I utilized to complete this research was a Pew Research Center poll

conducted in September 2012 about the public’s opinion concerning voter identification laws.

The survey was conducted September 12-16, 2012, among a total national sample of 3,019

adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. I

downloaded the dataset of this survey into IBM SPSS Statistics software in order to examine

various predictors of voters’ opinions on Voter ID laws. The survey question I relied to measure

voters’ opinion on Voter ID laws was “Do you think voters should not be required to show an

official photo identification before they are allowed to vote on Election Day?” This question

does not explain voter turnout but rather discusses opinion of the law. I performed a series of

bivariate analysis that relates this question with many demographic variables including

race/ethnicity, political party affiliation, age, gender, income level, state of residence, political

awareness, voting history, and education level, to address my research question concerning

various factors influencing people’s opinions on these laws. I looked at the significance of those

bivariate relationships to determine whether or not a certain factor influenced opinion of voter ID

laws.

Results

Qualitative Interviews

From the seven qualitative interviews that I conducted before the 2014 midterm elections

with College of Charleston students, there were several key takeaways. First and foremost, the

  24  
most interesting and most valuable takeaway was the fact that many of the interviewed students

were unfamiliar with the voter ID laws in the state of South Carolina. However, all of them said

that they were prepared to and planned to vote in the election in South Carolina.

I asked a set list of questions to each student and did not vary the questions in any way,

unless a follow-up question was necessary based on their previous answer. The questions began

by asking about demographics: age, gender, education level, hometown, political party

affiliation, and voting frequency. I then moved into more questions related to the study that

included asking the student if they were registered to vote, and if so, what state did they register

to vote. I asked whom they planned on voting for for the Governor of South Carolina and later

moved into questions regarding the voter ID law. I asked if the student was aware of the law and

then asked an open-ended question about what exactly they knew about the law, if anything at

all. I asked if the student knew what identification was accepted and if he or she had

identification that would be acceptable. After these, I asked how they heard about the law and

where they receive most of their political news and/or information. I asked when they found out

about the law and from what source, whether it be the media or friends or political

advertisements. I concluded with the question, “Do you anticipate having a problem with the

new voter identification law.”

I decided to group my interview responses into several different groups in order to

compare and contrast the results. I first divided the interviews into those from students who are

from in-state and another group of students from out-of-state. The overall consensus from the in-

state students was that they would have no problem with the voter ID law, since they have had a

South Carolina Driver’s License for several years. In addition, most of them had no worries

about its expiration date because they had renewed it recently, especially since most of them had

  25  
just turned 21 within the last year or two and had received a new ID at that point that was valid

for several upcoming years. The in-state students were ready to present the most common form

of voter ID, a state-issues Driver’s License, at the polls because they were prepared and

confident. Even though some of these students were unfamiliar with the law, once they were

made aware of the law and the types of identification that would be accepted, they seemed to not

have any concerns because they were confident in their driver’s license.

On the other hand, the interviewees from out-of-state had much deeper concerns about

their ability to vote under this law. Because out-of-state driver’s licenses are unacceptable forms

of voter identification in South Carolina, and the fact that the other forms of ID are less

commonly found especially amongst college students, this worried the out-of-state students. One

young woman, Student A, from Virginia who claimed she voted in every election since she

turned 18 and registered in South Carolina to vote so she could partake in the politics of the state

she resided in for college worried that she would get turned away from the polls. She was only in

possession of a Virginia driver’s license and lacked the time and money to obtain one of the

other forms of acceptable ID, which included a passport, a military ID, a photo voter ID card

from the state Board of Elections, or a non-Driver’s License DMV photo ID. She left the

interview planning to present her Virginia ID and vote provisionally if she was rejected.

“This law is ridiculous. I live here, I pay rent here, I pay tuition for my public university
here. I do not like this law because I should have a right to say who I believe should be
governing me during my time residing here. I shouldn’t have to change my entire
residency to obtain an in-state driver’s license just to vote here while I live here
transiently. The governor affects my education at my public school and me paying my
utilities and bills, so I should have a say” (Student A).

Upon Student A’s follow-up interview, she informed me, the interviewer, that the poll

worker had accepted her Virginia driver’s license when she was asked to present a photo ID and

did not incur any problems or questioning. When she relayed this information to me, it was not

  26  
surprising as the law in South Carolina was in place for the first time and I understood that it was

hard to train every poll worker in the state correctly or trust that they would follow all of the

rules. However, it was unclear whether this was simply a fluke that the poll worker overlooked,

or if poll workers did this continuously throughout Election Day in a polling place that catered to

the students of the College of Charleston, who might often present an alternate form of ID or not

present one at all.

Other out-of-state students expressed serious disappointment when they learned about the

law from the interviews. Many claimed that they had heard of a voter identification law, but it

turned out that none of them knew a great deal about what was required at the polls and what

forms of identification were acceptable. One student, Student B, who was very active politically

and had been closely following the impending South Carolina elections, expressed genuine

disbelief when she was told that her New Jersey driver’s license was not acceptable. She was led

to believe, through her following of the news and coverage of the law, that any driver’s license

would be accepted as long as the picture matched the face that showed up to vote. She did not

want to believe me when I told her that she would most likely be turned away or forced to vote

provisionally, in which case she would only have ten days to find an acceptable form of ID and

to go present it to the county Board of Elections in order for her vote to count. She said that the

news coverage she watched and read of the law never mentioned a distinction between the need

for a South Carolina photo ID versus an out-of-state ID, because they were all official

documents. In her follow-up interview, she said she decided not to go and vote after all because

she was afraid of the embarrassment she might have felt at the polls being rejected with her

improper ID and because she knew she would not be able to vote provisionally because she has

  27  
no access to a car and lives in downtown Charleston, nearly ten miles away from the Board of

Elections in North Charleston.

“I almost got denied in 2012 in the Presidential Election, because my New Jersey license
was not one of the forms they said they were going to accept. But upon showing them my
College of Charleston ID, my Cougar Card, they finally let me vote, so I just assumed I
should show the same ID again, but I guess that is not the case, based on what you are
telling me. I figured they might have realized this law really affects us out-of-state
college students, and there are a lot of us who want to vote” (Student B).

Another very interesting takeaway from the interviews is that every single interviewee

began the conversation in favor of voter ID laws. Many of them said they did not see why

presenting an ID could be an impediment or could be a problem for anyone. However, once the

conversations addressed the specific ID requirements and the consequences for not having that

specific ID, those who realized that they might lack the proper ID tended to get anxious and

express disapproval of the law and especially of its particular and specific requirements. Those

with an out-of-state license became very nervous about not being able to obtain the proper ID

due to a multitude of obstacles: no transportation, no time between class and work, a short time

period between the interview and the Election, and a lack of documentation or funds to actually

get a new ID.

Overall, about half of the interviewees were from out-of-state and faced an impediment at

the polls. While not all the poll workers ended up asking for their identification or strictly

accepting the state-mandated forms of identification, it was still possible that the law impacted

the students and caused inhibitions about voting in South Carolina in general. Of the seven

students I interviewed, one female student from out-of-state did not vote because she was

apprehensive about showing up to the polls without one of the permitted forms of identification.

Most of the students were very unfamiliar with the law as well and the most they had ever heard

about it was simply from our interview. Although some said they had heard about it in passing

  28  
through cable news shows or The State newspaper for students from Columbia, they said that

details such as what identifications were acceptable and when the law would go into effect did

not accompany these stories. From these interviews, it can be concluded that college students

tended to be very unaware of the details of the voter identification law in the state where they

voted and many students, especially at a campus like College of Charleston where more than a

third of the students are from out-of-state, were unprepared and lacked the proper identification.

However, with just these qualitative interviews, it is still unclear whether this situation had any

discernable effects on turnout. In order to better assess such effects, I further analyzed two sets of

nationally representative survey data.

American National Election Study Data (ANES)

The analysis of the American National Election Study data from 2012 proved to contain

some important general trends in each of the variables in my analysis. In 2008, no voter ID laws

were in place during the presidential election on November 4, 2008. However, in 2012, seven

states had enacted a strict photo identification law that was deemed legal and just by higher

courts. These laws were in place for the November 6, 2012 presidential election in Georgia,

Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia. To examine the effect

of the implementation of these laws, I compared turnout rates between those respondents who

resided in those seven states and those who resided in all of the other states.

First, Hypothesis 1, “Voter identification laws can negatively affect voter turnout and

cause turnout rates to decrease in states where voter ID laws are present as opposed to in states

where there are no voter ID laws,” was examined using the 2012 ANES data. I compared the

turnout rates amongst the states that had implemented a law versus those that did not in 2008 and

then for 2012 to see what the results of implementing a voter ID law did to affect turnout. The

  29  
data I used was all from the 2012 ANES Study. The questions asked the same group of

respondents to reflect back on if they voted in 2008 and then a post-election question from 2012

asking if they voted. As displayed in Figure 1, the result was unexpected in that voter turnout

tended to have risen from 2008 to 2012 both in states with and without voter identification laws.

An important item to note when looking at these responses was that this turnout information was

based on self-report and that respondents tend to over-report their actual turnout The results

showed that while turnout rates went up from 2008 to 2012 in states that had implemented voter

ID laws in time for the 2012 election as well as in states that had not, this growth in turnout was

less prominent in the states that had experienced the implementation of voter ID laws for the

2012 election than in the states without voter ID laws (see Figure 1). In 2008, non-affected

states had a turnout rate of 73.9% and affected states had a turnout rate of 75.6%. In 2012, non-

affected states had a turnout rate of 87.6% and affected states had a turnout rate of 84.5%. The

line graph in Figure 1 depicts this trend and demonstrates that there was a slowed growth in

affected states from 2008, when there were no voter ID laws in place, to 2012, when ID laws

were implemented in seven different affected states. However, the significance level in this 2008

relationship was shown to be 0.46, which does not fall below the significance threshold of 0.05,

and the significance level in the 2012 relationship was 0.38, which also does not fall below 0.05.

This demonstrated that statistically, the relationship between states where voter ID laws were

implemented and turnout percentage is insignificant.

The second hypothesis, “Groups that will be more negatively impacted will be minority

groups and their turnout rates will be lower in states and years when voter identification laws

have been enacted” was next examined using the same ANES data. I still did an analysis of how

turnout rates in 2008 and 2012 differed between states with a voter ID law versus those without,

  30  
but I controlled for race and was able to break down the results between black and white

respondents. As Figure 2 shows, the white turnout in affected states in 2008 was 75.2% and in

2012 it was 84.5%. The white turnout in non-affected states in 2008 was 72.8% and in 2012 it

was 87.5%. The black turnout in affected states in 2008 was 78.6% and in 2012 it was 84.5%.

The black turnout in non-affected states in 2008 was 80.4% and in 2012 it was 87.7%. From

comparing the results, the numbers are all extremely similar and do not demonstrate much, if

any, significance of the black vote being more suppressed as a result of voter identification laws.

However, the significance level in the 2008 relationship amongst blacks was 0.15, which does

not fall below 0.05, so it is an insignificant relationship. The significance level in the 2008

relationship amongst non-Blacks was 0.17, which does not fall below 0.05, so it is an

insignificant relationship. The significance level in this 2012 relationship amongst Blacks was

shown to be 0.22, which does not fact fall below the significance threshold of 0.05, making this

relationship insignificant. The significance level in the 2012 relationship amongst non-Blacks

was 0.50, which does not fall below 0.05, so it is an insignificant relationship. This demonstrated

that statistically, the relationship between states where voter ID laws were implemented and

turnout percentage amongst Blacks is insignificant. While the lines on the graph do demonstrate

this insignificant trend, it is important to look at the statistics summary.

I also looked at gender as a way to see if turnout affected the minority group of women,

who won their right to vote much later than men in 1920. As Figure 3 shows, the male turnout in

affected states in 2008 was 67.6% and in 2012 it was 82.3%. The male turnout in unaffected

states in 2008 was 73.8% and in 2012 it was 89.2%. The female turnout in affected states in 2008

was 73.2% and in 2012 it was 86.2%. The female turnout in unaffected states in 2008 was 63.2%

and in 2012 it was 82.4%. As demonstrated by the percentages above, turnout jumped greatly

  31  
amongst all groups and all states from 2008 to 2012. As you will see in Figure 3, the trends all

were pretty much on the same growth pattern and no line was any more severe than the others,

indicating no drastic changes or suppression. However, the significance level in the 2008

relationship amongst females was 0.19, which does not fall below 0.05, so it is an insignificant

relationship. The significance level in the 2008 relationship amongst males was 0.36, which does

not fall below 0.05, so it is an insignificant relationship. The significance level in this 2012

relationship amongst men was shown to be 0.00, which does in fact fall below the significance

threshold of 0.05, making this relationship significant. The significance level in the 2012

relationship amongst females was 0.73, which does not fall below 0.05, so it is an insignificant

relationship. This demonstrated that statistically, the relationship between states where voter ID

laws were implemented and turnout percentage amongst genders is insignificant, except in 2012

amongst males. However, the lines on the graph do not demonstrate this trend so it is important

to look at the statistics summary.

Age was also examined as a variable that could potentially affect voter turnout in states

with voter ID laws. After separating the data into three distinct age groups (young, middle age,

and elderly) and then running the same test as earlier, comparing turnout in states with voter ID

against turnout in states without voter ID, but in this case I held age as the control variable.

Turnout increased among all age groups in both states with an ID law and without it, as depicted

in Figure 4. However, the pattern among youth voters in states with Voter ID laws is quite

similar to the pattern in Figure 1 depicting states with an ID law versus those without an ID law.

There was a slower growth among the states with ID laws in 2012 as compared to in states

without, and this holds true in this analysis as well. Young people in states with an ID law in

2012 saw a slower growth rate as opposed to the young people in states without an ID law, and

  32  
this can be seen in Figure 4. This leads me to believe there is some clear evidence in these data

that younger people turn out to vote less frequently as a result of voter ID laws. The 2008

summary statistics amongst younger, middle aged and elderly voters was 0.26, 0.84 and 0.36,

respectively. All of these fall above the significance threshold of 0.05, so they are not significant

relationships. The 2012 summary statistics amongst younger, middle aged and elderly voters was

0.84, 0.28 and 0.08, respectively. All of these fall above the significance threshold of 0.05, so

they are not significant relationships. Again in this situation, the conclusions taken from

interpreting the lines on the line graph do not match with the summary statistics of significant

relationships.

Pew Research Center Poll

The Pew Research Center poll from September 12-16, 2012 asked voters several

questions about their sentiments concerning voter identification laws. By conducting a series of

chi-square tests, I was able to gauge how significant the bivariate relationships between certain

demographics and the respondent’s sentiments about voter ID laws. The question that read “Do

you think voters should or should not be required to show an official photo identification before

they are allowed to vote on Election Day?” was examined as the dependent variable.1 Several

independent variables were then cross-tabulated with this opinion question. This part of analysis

addressed my research question, which states, “What are the factors that influence people’s

opinions on Voter ID law?”

                                                                                                               
1
The proper method of analyzing this variable should be a logistical regression or categorical variable analysis.
However, these techniques were beyond the scope of the undergraduate research methods course so here I treat this
as a normative variable.

  33  
 A chi-square test was conducted to assess whether race affects perception on voter

identification laws. As reported in Table 1, a chi-square test was performed and a significant

relationship was found between race and the opinion on voter identification laws. X2 (2, N =

1517) = 9.97, p =.007 (Table 2). The result for this test was significant, because the significance

level was .007, which is definitely under the .05 threshold of significance. As you can see in the

table as well as through examining the significance level, minority respondents were less

supportive of the law, and this might be attributed to the fact that they believe it unfairly affects

them.

The next independent variable that was examined was states with voter ID laws versus

those without. Would residing in a state with voter identification laws influence a person’s

opinion about the law in general? Like I did with the ANES data, I divided the respondents into

two groups: those residing in states with voter ID laws and those residing in states without. A

chi-square test was performed and no relationship was found between state and the opinion on

voter identification laws. X2 (2, N = 1513) = 1.81, p =.404 (see Table 2).The result for this test

was insignificant at the conventional .05 significance level. A noteworthy item to consider when

examining this cross tabulation is that the N was much larger for the variable of states without

voter ID laws as opposed to the N of the group of states that had voter ID laws, which could lead

to this extremely insignificant result.

Another independent variable examined in SPSS was political party identification. The

political parties were narrowed down in SPSS to Republican and Democrat and the goal was to

determine if being a Republican or a Democrat leads to stronger opinions concerning voter

identification laws. I created a new variable that simply contain Republicans and Democrats. A

chi-square test was performed and a significant relationship was found between political party

  34  
identification and opinion on voter identification laws. X2 (2, N = 977) = 148.27, p <..001 (see

Table 3). As you see, Republicans were much more supportive of the law than Democrats. Since

these laws are Republican-led legislation, this makes sense. Also, most of the minority groups

tend to vote Democratic, which can also contribute to these results (Lublin & Voss, 2003).

A final independent variable that was examined in this study was age. If young people

and old people are said to be most greatly affected by this law, according to the literature review,

than I was interested in looking into if the statistical analysis would prove this true. I recoded the

age variable to consist of three distinct age groups. The first was 18-29, the second was 30-49

and the third and final grouping was ages 50-79. A chi-square test was performed and no

significant relationship was found between age and opinion on voter identification laws. X2 (4, N

= 1530) = 4.09, p =.394 (see Table 4).

Discussion and Conclusions

The research here was done in a three pronged approach that consisted of qualitative

interviews, American National Election Study 2012 (ANES) surveys and a poll from a 2012 Pew

Research Center study that examined individual opinions on voter identification laws. There are

strengths and weaknesses to incorporating three separate data sets in this study. After conducting

each study, it is clear that they each attempt to look at three separate issues. The interviews look

at student opinion prior to the election, the ANES studies look at turnout percentages and the

Pew poll looks at people’s perceptions of the voter ID law. The ANES surveys and the Pew poll

look at separate items-turnout versus perception. It is hard to tie the two together, because even if

people have negative sentiments about the law, as seen in the Pew poll, that does not necessarily

mean that they are not going to vote, which can be seen in the ANES survey data. It is important

  35  
to look at these two items separately and understand that they mean two different things and

might not be linked.

The qualitative interviews in this study served as an exploratory method and an

introduction to the topic. This was not a hypothesis testing mechanism but rather an opportunity

for me as the researcher to get a basic understanding of the impact of voter ID laws and the

knowledge of voter ID laws amongst young people on my own college campus. The responses I

received via this study provide a few important insights into how these laws can influence voting

behavior among young people. Many of the qualitative interviews I conducted on the College of

Charleston students featured out-of-state students registered to vote in South Carolina but lacking

the proper identification valid under the voter ID law in South Carolina, so many of them were

deterred from voting after realizing this fact.

However, the qualitative interviews had their shortcomings in this research. Due to the

fact that many of the students interviewed were unfamiliar with the idea of voter identification

laws prior to our discussion, they were made keenly aware of the specific requirements and

penalties through my informing of them. They were therefore more prepared to face the voter

identification laws at the polls, as opposed to their fellow students who might have shown up to

the polls completely unprepared and unknowledgeable about the laws. When considering this,

the backlash effect must be examined. The Republican-led legislatures in many states intended,

in some ways, for these laws to deter the minority populations from voting. However, informing

people of the laws, through both positive and negative adverting, these minority groups might

not have been deterred but rather more inclined to prove the law would not effect them in the

desired way (Jasperson & Fan, 2002). While this idea is not exactly addressed in this study, it is

something to be examined and considered by groups that advertise voter identification laws, both

  36  
from a negative and positive perspective. This idea of a backlash effect might also explain why

turnout percentages rose across the board from 2008 to 2012, in the ANES studies. More people

surveyed in the states that voter ID laws were enacted in 2012 might have been more inclined to

test out the new law or prove the law wrong and turnout in higher percentages than in the

previous cycle.

The statistical analyses of two nationally representative survey datasets sometimes

support the hypotheses pertaining to voter turnout amongst certain demographic groups and in

certain states where voter ID is implemented versus states where it is not. The first hypothesis,

claiming that states where voter ID was implemented faced a negative effect on turnout, was

seen to have been significant because the percentages of turnout and the change in turnout did

reflect a difference between before implementation and after implementation. States that saw an

implementation of voter ID laws in 2012 have a more depressed turnout growth rate as compared

to those without the implementation of laws, as shown in Figure 1. Thus, this hypothesis may be

partially supported through this research.

The second hypothesis claimed a negative association between states with voter ID laws

and minority voter turnout. This produced no significant results. The turnout rate amongst blacks

was practically identical to the turnout rates of whites, as shown in Figure 2. Again, this could be

attributed to the small number of minority voters surveyed by ANES in this study and might not

represent the general turnout rate amongst blacks in states with voter ID laws. The turnout rates

between whites and blacks differed only by decimal points in many areas of this survey, so based

off of this data it is hard to say that there is a relationship between depressed voter turnout

amongst minorities in states where voter ID laws have been implemented. Concerning gender

and the second hypothesis of a depressed minority vote after the implementation of voter ID

  37  
laws, the line graph which compared female turnout in states with voter ID laws, female turnout

in states without voter ID laws, male turnout in states with voter ID laws and male turnout in

states without voter ID laws, shows four lines all following a similar growth pattern from 2008 to

2012, indicating that there was no real depression in turnout amongst females when ID laws were

implemented in several states in 2012, thus proving the hypothesis incorrect.

The third hypothesis, which read, “Voter turnout amongst younger people will be

negatively impacted by voter ID laws due to the extra hurdles they must encounter concerning

voter ID laws” was tested by comparing turnout rates between those states that implemented

voter ID laws in 2012 and those that didn’t within different age groups. I examined three age

groups: young (17-34), middle age (35-54) and elderly (55-74). As shown in Figure 4, each age

group faced an increase in turnout from 2008 to 2012, However, the young people in states that

implemented a voter ID law in 2012 increased their turnout from 2008 to 2012 at a more

depressed and slower rate than the young people in states without such laws.. Therefore, this

hypothesis was partially supported by this study as well.

The research question that asked “What are the factors that influence people’s opinions

on Voter ID law?” was examined using the Pew Research Center poll and SPSS software. By

utilizing many of the variables that have been identified in the literature review as important

predictors of voter turnout, I was able to look at certain independent variables that I believed

might be influential concerning an individual’s opinion on voter ID laws. Out of the four

variables tested (race, state, political party identification and age), both race and political party

identification were found to be significant. A really interesting aspect of the results of this study

to examine is that only 6.1% of the Republicans surveyed believed that voters should not be

required to show photo identification before they are allowed to vote on Election Day, while

  38  
nearly 40% of Democrats thought this way. Voter ID laws have long thought to be a Republican-

led strategy to turn away typically Democratic voters (minorities, women, young people) from

the polls (Barreto, Nuno & Sanchez, 2009). The research performed in this Bachelor’s Essay

found evidence for a depressed turnout amongst women, black people or young people. This

study also found that the general consensus of the Democratic Party, as gathered from this SPSS

analysis of the Pew poll, is opposition to Voter ID laws, while Republicans look to be in favor of

them according to this study. Overall, that is a significant aspect to take away from this study.

Overall, the sentiment amongst the Pew poll was that the majority of people were in favor

of voter identification laws, despite their minority status or demographics. However, through

analyzing the ANES data, it is important to note that just because people are opposed to a law

does not mean they are not going to turn out to vote. The backlash effect can come into play

here, or the fact that people may feel strongly about a wrongdoing in the voting process but it

will not deter them from voicing their opinion and their constitutional right. While these two sets

of data might not completely agree with each other or come to any specific conclusions, they

both offer distinct views on how the American people think about and react to this law.

There are some limitations that arose during this study that are worth noting. With the

ANES data, only the data from 2012 was utilized, so when respondents were asked to respond as

to whether or not they voted in 2008, they had to reflect back several years to give an answer and

the results could have been skewed due to this. Also, the N was very small for these questions,

about 1500 people, so this might not accurately depict the population of the United States as a

whole. In addition, it is important to remember that many people, when polled about their voting

preferences and frequency, tend to inflate that number, so that might be the reason why the

  39  
turnout seems to be so high when, in reality, voter turnout numbers and percentages are often a

lot lower than these numbers.

With these conclusions, it is evident that the behavior and opinions of voters are

multifaceted and very complex. Overall, these findings show that voter ID laws do in fact impact

turnout amongst certain demographic minority groups. The data pulled from both ANES and the

Pew Research Center poll demonstrate the significant effects that implementation of a voter

identification has on the turnout of specific groups of people in states that abide by a law versus

those who do not. While a good amount of literature is available currently that states that voter

ID laws have no impact on turnout, the results derived from this study would prove differently

and significantly contribute to the study of the effects of voter identification laws on turnout.

Because this phenomenon is so recent, I firmly believe this study will be a valuable asset to the

library of literature concerned with effects of voter identification laws. Future studies should be

conducted as every election comes along to track how voter ID laws truly do impact turnout rates

as the laws become more prevalent and well known and widespread. However, for the time

being, this research significantly contributes to the study of the impact of voter identification

laws on voter turnout and truly demonstrates that voter identification laws impact and inhibit

certain minority groups, including women, African-Americans and young people,

disproportionately. In addition, the literature proved that this law was a Republican-backed piece

of legislature and got passed in states controlled by Republicans (Lublin & Voss, 2003), and this

study proved that Republicans are very in favor of the law, while Democrats are strongly

opposed, which contributes to this research of polarization concerning the issue of voter

identification laws.

  40  
 A number of theoretical and statistical perspectives can be applied to examine these

ideas. The general success of my hypotheses was eye opening and helped me sort through what

was simply public opinion and what was statistical truth. Due to the fact that voter ID laws are

still a recent phenomenon with not a lot of data to utilize, I believe that going forward these ideas

and truths will change and adapt to the ever-changing voting patterns across the United States. I

believe this research will prove to be an asset today in the field of voter identification laws

literature and the data and conclusions will likely change with coming elections.

  41  
 Appendix

Figure 1

  42  
Figure 2

  43  
Figure 3

  44  
Figure 4

  45  
Table 1

States

Do you think voters States without States with ID Total

should or should ID Law Law
not be required to Should 975 156 1131
show an official
photo identification 64.4% 10.3% 74.8%
before they are
allowed to vote on Should Not 299 39 338
election Day?
19.8% 2.6% 22.3%

Don’t 40 4 44
Know/Refused
2.6% 0.3% 2.9%

TOTAL 1314 199 1513

86.8% 13.2% `100%

Chi-Square Test

Value df Asymp. Sig (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.813a 2 .404
Likelihood Ratio 1.902 2 .386
Linear by Linear
1.202 1 .273
Association
N of Valid Cases 1513

  46  
Table 2

Race

Do you think voters White/Majority Minority Total

should or should
not be required to Should 914 220 1134
show an official
photo identification 60.3% 14.5% 74.8%
before they are
allowed to vote on Should Not 247 93 340
election Day?
16.3% 6.1% 22.4%

Don’t 33 10 43
Know/Refused
2.2% 0.3% 2.8%

TOTAL 1194 323 1517

78.7% 21.3% `100%

 
 

Chi Square Test

 
 
Value df Asymp. Sig (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.973a 2 .007
Likelihood Ratio 9.580 2 .008
Linear by Linear
1.604 1 .205
Association
N of Valid Cases 1517

 
 

  47  
Table 3

Political Party Affiliation

 
Do you think voters Republican Democrat Total
should or should
not be required to Should 386 326 712
show an official
photo identification 39.5% 33.4% 72.9%
before they are
allowed to vote on Should Not 25 215 240
election Day?
2.6% 22.0% 24.6%

Don’t 4 21 25
Know/Refused
0.4% 2.1% 2.6%

TOTAL 415 562 977

42.5% 57.5% `100%
 

Chi Square Test

Value df Asymp. Sig (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 148.272a 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 167.856 2 .000
Linear by Linear
42.018 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 977

  48  
Table 4
Age  Groups  
 
Do you think Young Middle Age Elderly Total
voters should or
should not be Should 142 317 685 1144
required to show
an official photo 9.3% 20.7% 44.8% 74.8%
identification
before they are Should Not 47 84 212 343
allowed to vote
on election Day? 3.1% 5.5% 13.9% 22.4%

Don’t 7 7 29 43
Know/Refused
0.5% 0.5% 1.9% 2.8%

TOTAL 196 408 926 1530

12.8% 26.7% 60.5% 100%
 

Chi Square Test

Value df Asymp. Sig (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.087a 4 .394
Likelihood Ratio 4.334 4 .363
Linear by Linear
.124 1 .725
Association
N of Valid Cases 1530

  49  
 Works Cited

Atkeson, L. R., Kerevel, Y. P., Alvarez, R. M., & Hall, T. E. (2014). Who Asks For Voter
Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion. Journal Of Politics, 76(4), 944-00957

Apuzzo, M. (2014). Students Joining Battle to Upend Laws on Voter ID. The New York Times.
The New York Times. Web.

Barreto, M. A., Nuno, S. A., & Sanchez, G. R. (2009). The disproportionate impact of voter-ID
requirements on the electorate—new evidence from Indiana. PS: Political Science & Politics,
42(01), 111-116.

Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld P., and McPhee, W. (1954). Voting; a Study of Opinion Formation in a
Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burnham, W.D. (1965) The changing shape of the American political universe. American
Political Science Review 59: pp. 7-28

Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Citrin, J., Green, D. P., & Levy, M. (2014). The Effects of Voter ID Notification on Voter
Turnout: Results from a Large-Scale Field Experiment. Election Law Journal, 13(2), 228-242.

DelReal, J. (2014) Voter turnout in 2014 was the lowest since WWII. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-
turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/

Ellis, A. R. (2009). The Cost of the Vote: Poll Taxes, Voter Identification Laws, and the Price of
Democracy. Denver University Law Review, 86(3).

Gerber, A., Green, D. & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting May be Habit Forming: Evidence from a
Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science 47(3): 540-550. DOI:
10.1111/1540-5907.00038

Goldstein, K. & Ridout, T. (2002). The Politics of Participation: Mobilization and Turnout over
Time. Political Behavior 24(1): 3-29.

Grofman, B., Owen, G., & Collet, C. (1999). Rethinking the partisan effects of higher turnout: so
what's the question?. Public Choice 99(3-4), 357-376.

Harder, J., & Krosnick, J. A. (2008). Why Do People Vote? A Psychological Analysis of the
Causes of Voter Turnout. Journal Of Social Issues, 64(3), 525-549.

Hasen, R. (2013). Race or Party? How Courts Should Think About Republican Efforts to Make it
Harder to Vote in North Carolina and Elsewhere. Harvard Law Review Forum.

  50  
Hill, K. & Leighley, J. (1999). Racial Diversity, Voter Turnout, and Mobilizing Institutions in
the United States. American Politics Research.

Haspel, M., & Knotts, H.G. (2005). Location, location, location: Precinct placement and the
costs of voting. Journal of Politics.

Jasperson, A.E. & Fan, D.P. (2002). An Aggregate Examination of the Backlash Effect in
Political Advertising: The Case of the 1996 U.S. Senate Race in Minnesota. Journal of
Advertising. 31(1), 1-12.

Kirby, E.H.& Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2009). The Youth Vote in 2008. CIRCLE Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from www.civicyouth.org.

Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing media
environment. Sage.

Lublin, D., & Voss, D. S. (2003). The Missing Middle: Why Median-­‐‑Voter Theory Can’t
Save Democrats from Singing the Boll-­‐‑Weevil Blues. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 227-237.

McElwee, S. (2014). Why Turning Out The Vote Makes A Huge Difference In Four Charts.
Talking Points Memo. Retrieved from http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/turn-out-for-what-
charts

Nagler, J. (1991). The Effect of Registration Laws and Education on U.S. Voter
Turnout. The American Political Science Review.

Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. "Participation's Not a Paradox:
The View from American Activists." British Journal of Political Science 25.01 (1995): Web.

Sondheimer, R.M., & Green, D. (2010). Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of Education
on Voter Turnout. American Journal of Political Science 54.1. 174-89. Web.

Tenn, S. (2005). An Alternative Measure of Relative Education to Explain Voter Turnout.

Journal of Politics, 67: 271–282.

Trotter, R. W. (2013). Vote of Confidence: Crawford V. Marion County Election Board, Voter
Identification Laws, and the Suppression of a Structural Right. New York University Journal Of
Legislation & Public Policy, 16(2), 515-563.

Underhill, W. (2015). Voter Identification Requirements. National Conference of State

Legislators.

Verba, S., Nie, N.H. (1972) Participation in America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

"Student Voting Guide." (2010). Brennan Center for Justice.

  51  
Who Can Register To Vote? (2007). South Carolina Election Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.scvotes.org/who_can_register_to_vote

  52