VoterDecoder
← Back to your ballot
Government & Ethics Voter ID & Election Security

Voter ID & Election Security

Reads at about grade 5Both sides shown11 sources cited

Voter ID laws ask people to show an ID, usually a photo ID, before they vote.

What it is

"Voter ID" means rules that ask you to prove who you are before you vote, often by showing a photo ID like a driver's license. It is one part of "election security" -- the larger job of making sure only eligible people vote, and that every ballot is counted the right way. States differ a lot: about 36 states ask or require some ID at the polls, while the other 14 states and Washington, D.C. use other checks, most often matching your signature to one on file. States also differ in how strict they are. In a "strict" state, a voter with no ID casts a "provisional" ballot -- a ballot set aside that counts only if the voter comes back later with ID. In other states, the voter can sign a sworn statement instead, or a poll worker may be allowed to vouch for them. California usually does not ask for ID at the polls. There is one main exception: if you registered by mail, are voting for the first time, and did not give an ID number or Social Security number, you may be asked for ID. In 2024 California also passed a law that bars cities from adding their own local voter ID rules. Two things are well established. First, the kind of cheating a photo ID would catch is very rare -- that is one person voting as someone else. Second, most Americans back photo ID: a 2024 Gallup poll found 84% in favor. Experts do disagree on one thing: whether ID rules keep many eligible people from voting. A large national study of 2008-2018 found little to no effect on turnout. A 2014 government study found small drops in two states, Kansas and Tennessee -- about 2 to 3 percentage points -- though that study also found mixed results across the research it reviewed. Both sides make their strongest case below.

How it works

Every state needs a way to tell that a voter is who they say they are. The debate is about how much proof to require. Supporters of voter ID want a photo ID shown at the polls. They say it is a simple, common step that guards against cheating and helps people trust the results. Opponents say most people already are who they say they are, and that one person voting as another almost never happens. They worry strict ID rules mostly hurt people who lack a current photo ID -- often poor, elderly, disabled, rural, and minority voters. So the fight is really about a trade-off: how do you weigh a small risk of fraud, plus the value of public trust, against the risk of blocking some eligible voters? Courts have mostly allowed voter ID laws. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo ID law in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, even though the state had no record of the exact fraud the law targeted.

The debate — equal weight, both sides

The case for voter ID and election security
Most often made by Republicans and conservatives (e.g., the Heritage Foundation) and many election officials.

Voting is one of our most important rights. We should protect it with care. As election-law scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, a photo ID is already needed "to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check." Asking for ID to vote is a normal, reasonable step. As one conservative editorial put it, "Voting is too important to leave to the honor system." Supporters say ID guards against several kinds of cheating, including one person voting as another, or votes cast under fake names. Even if such fraud is uncommon, as von Spakovsky puts it, "every illegal vote steals the vote of a legitimate voter." The U.S. Supreme Court agreed the risk is real, warning that voter fraud "could affect the outcome of a close election." The Court also said public trust matters on its own, that it "has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process." And ID rules need not keep people from voting. A large national study found the laws had "no negative effect on registration or turnout," for any racial group. A simple safeguard that most voters want, and that builds trust, is worth keeping.

The case against voter ID laws
Most often made by Democrats and by civil-rights and voting-rights groups (e.g., the ACLU and the Brennan Center).

The right to vote is basic. No eligible person should lose it over paperwork. Strict photo ID laws attack a problem that barely exists. In-person voter impersonation is the fraud these laws stop, and studies show it almost never happens. The Brennan Center found rates "between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent" -- as the Brennan Center put it, an American is more likely to "be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls." Meanwhile the cost is real. The ACLU reports that about 7% of U.S. citizens -- more than 16 million Americans -- "cannot confirm that they have a government-issued photo ID." The gap is uneven: "Up to 13% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 5% of whites." Getting an ID is not always easy or free -- the ACLU estimates the costs "range from $75 to $175." Opponents say these burdens fall hardest on poor, elderly, disabled, rural, and minority voters, and it shows up at the polls: a 2014 government study found strict photo ID laws cut turnout more in Kansas and Tennessee than in similar states. Guarding against near-zero fraud is not worth turning away real, eligible voters.

Sources

Behind the summary
Cited by "The case for voter ID and election security"
Cited by "The case against voter ID laws"

On your ballot

The two sides appear only when both are sourced, and every explainer is reviewed by a person before it goes live. We summarize what each side argues; we never tell you how to vote.