February 3, 2015
Voter
Identification Implications
"He
just cheated!" We've all heard those words before. Almost
everyone has played a game or had a job in which one person
consistently lied or cheated. We even hear about drug scandals in
sports, lying politicians, the immoral pop culture, and shady
dealings in the private sector. It would be safe to conclude that it
is a part of human nature for one to be dishonest. So, why does this
frustration not occur when an individual, regardless of citizenship,
race, political party, or opinion, votes fraudulently? Games have
rules. At work there may be a dress code or set of ethical
requirements for the employees. But why is voting an exemption to
the rule? There are laws, in many states, that are established to
safeguard the electoral system against individuals who are always in
rebellion against laws and ethical standards. This is why standards
are a necessary part of government: without law, society
disintegrates into anarchy and tyranny. Despite claims of
discrimination and disenfranchisement of minorities, voter ID laws
actually defend the impartiality of our electoral system.
Some
people may not be aware of voter identification requirements. They
are laws which try to prevent voter fraud by having a voter present
valid, government-issued ID before voting. There are two primary
ways in which one can classify voter identification laws. One way is
to sort them according to their strictness. Another way is to sort
them according to whether or not they require a photo identification
and what forms of identification are valid. These classification
systems can and do overlap. A law can exist for which one must show
a photo ID, or which asks to see a voter ID. These are called
"strict photo" or "non-strict photo" requirement,
respectively. Also, there can be a law that requires an ID, not
necessarily photo. It is imperative that one know the differences
among the laws.
A
"strict" Voter ID law is one for which every voter must
show a given acceptable form of ID before voting on a regular ballot.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures' Wendy
Underhill, in her article “Voter Identification Requirements”:
Voters
without acceptable identification must vote on a provisional
ballot
and also take additional steps after Election Day for [the vote] to
be counted. For instance, the
voter may be required to return to an election office within a few
days after the election and present an acceptable ID to have the
provisional ballot counted. If the voter does not come back to show
ID, the provisional ballot is not counted.
Therefore,
under a strict ID law, if you do not have the valid identification,
you can still vote; however, you still have to prove your identity.
For example, in the state of Indiana, the deadline for confirming
your identity at the election board office is at noon on the Monday
after the election (Lee). Here again, the ID can be a photo or
non-photo identification.
Non-strict
laws ask voters for a form of identification but do not necessarily
require them. A voter without the proper form of identification may
or may not be given a regular ballot. If he still must vote using
the provisional ballot, he may be required to sign an affidavit (a
signed legal document verified by a judge or magistrate), or get a
poll worker to certify his identity by vouching for him (Lee).
Mostly, states that have non-strict ID laws do not require voters to
verify their identities at all.
The
other way to group the variety of existing laws is according to the
type of identification required. So, the states whose valid forms of
ID are only photo are called "photo" states, while the
states whose forms of ID are not necessarily photo are called
"non-photo" states. And, of course, the strictness of the
law always depends on the other classification system.
Obviously,
the rest of the states do not require any form of voter
identification. Thirty-four states have legislation that requires or
asks voters to show an ID when they vote. Among these, Indiana,
Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are the least lenient in
their legislation. They are the “strict-photo” requiring states.
The others either are “non-strict” states or require some form
of identification other than a photo ID. Most of the non-strict ID
states ask for some form of valid identification, usually
government-issued, before a person votes. In some states a valid
form of identification could be a military ID, called a Common Access
Card (CAC), a student's college ID, a work facility pass, or a gun
ownership license. Also, if a person cannot afford to obtain the
documents necessary to procure a valid form of identification, he can
get one free from the local DMV or courthouse.
Some
states have exemptions to showing a form of photo identification.
For example, some exceptions are "indigency or religious
objections to being photographed," says Suevon Lee in
“Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws”.
"But these exceptions don't automatically grant a voter the
ability to cast a regular ballot: in Pennsylvania and Indiana, voters
will be given a provisional ballot and must sign an affidavit for
their exemption within the given time frame." Other exemption
reasons can include natural disasters, reasonable disabilities, or
having a secret ID to avoid being harassed or abused. According to
the National Conference of State Legislatures, "Most States with
strict voter identification requirements make some exceptions"
(Underhill).
What
do all these laws cost? According to the National Conference of
State Legislatures, "Costs are among the primary factors that
lawmakers—and voters—consider when evaluating legislative
proposals" (Shanton and Underhill 1). In other words, the
benefits of such requirements must outweigh the costs. The primary
benefit is less voter fraud, causing more honest elections. The
costs are not that simple.
Most
of the costs are continuous, while others decrease with time, or are
simply paid once. For example, some of the initial costs are new
polling machinery, like ID scanners or voting devices. Continuous
costs for ID legislation are printing extra provisional ballots,
employing more poll workers, and publishing informative fliers about
the nature of a state's newest specifications. The main ongoing cost
(to the government) is that of providing "free"
identification to those citizens unable to afford an ID. Opponents
of the voter identification legislation like to claim that this cost
is inexcusably cumbersome, but the American University surveyed
voters in Indiana, Maryland, and Mississippi, finding that "[L]ess
than 0.5 percent of respondents had neither a photo ID nor
citizenship documentation" (Berardelli). This means that the
cost of providing identification to disabled or low-income citizens
is not as expensive as has been claimed. Still, according to the
National Conference of State Legislatures' estimation, "Indiana
estimated spending $13 to produce each free ID card, for a total of
between $2 million and $3 million per year, for an overall total of
$10,023,221 between 2007 and 2010" (Shanton and Underhill 2).
This is still a major cost; however, some people's claims about the
extent of its enormity are overblown.
One
must not omit the conceivable costs. These may not arise in every
state's ledger; however, they are feasible. A few prospective costs
are litigation defense, and abiding by the regulations of the Voting
Rights Act. An exemplary situation was the South Carolina voter ID
lawsuit that ended up costing the state over three and a half million
dollars (Shanton and Underhill 3). Another instance of an expensive
lawsuit was the Wisconsin lawsuit, terminated a little more than two
months ago, that cost the state at least $1 million.
If
the costs of a voter identification law are overly exorbitant, then
legislators obviously should look into trimming the budget needs of
the proposed law. Notwithstanding liberty's pricelessness, any
reasonable amount should be paid to maintain our liberty of
expression in the right to vote. Also, legislators should balance
the costs of these laws among state and local governments in such a
way that all the budgets can be balanced, whether the solution be the
state absorbing most of the cost, or city governments absorbing the
cost, or county governments.
Some
local election officials believe additional administration costs can
be absorbed into existing budgets. But others think they will add
costs at the local level [. . .] Legislators in other states may want
to think about whether and how to share voter ID expenses between
state and local governments. (Shanton and Underhill 5)
One
thing must be made certain: requiring voter identification should not
be the jurisdiction of the federal government, but that of the
states. Apart from the requirement of first-time voters to show a
photo ID under the Help America Vote Act, the states should be the
primary legislators of voter ID statutes.
The
current involvement of the federal government in the states' voter
identification laws smacks of the overreach that is so common in the
federal government today. According to the Associated Press,
Attorney General Eric Holder said:
We
are extremely heartened by the [U.S. District Court's] decision,
which affirms our position that the Texas voter identification law
unfairly and unnecessarily restricts access to the franchise. We are
also pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to allow Wisconsin
to implement its own restrictive voter identification law [. . .] Even after the Voting Rights Act was seriously eroded last year, we
vowed to continue enforcing the remaining portions of that statute
as aggressively as possible. This ruling is an important vindication
of those efforts." (“Courts Block”)
This
view taken by the Justice Department focuses on the possible
discrimination in the laws instead of the immense help they provide
to the electoral system.
As
soon as voter ID is discussed, the smearing and blame games begin.
Many think that this topic is purely partisan; however, it can be
addressed in light of common sense and statistics. Often, the
Liberals claim that seemingly half the population is disenfranchised
(causing a negative decrease in voter turnout), while denying even
the most minuscule chance that voter fraud exists. In his blog
“FiveThirtyEight”, Nate Silver claims, "[I]t's clear enough
that stricter voter ID requirements are probably bad for Democrats,
on balance. In almost every state where the ID laws have been an
issue, Republican governors and legislatures have been on the side of
passing stricter ones, while Democrats have sought to block them."
On the other hand, Republicans argue what GOPUSA author, Susan
Brown, says in her article. "So, why are they so afraid of
voter ID? Maybe because Liberals couldn't win elections without
rampant voter fraud?" Brown claims that election results are
being slanted because of the laxness of requirements, and that is why
the Democrats like less restrictions.
On
both sides of this argument, many points rely on facts that have been
proven to be myths. Here is an illustration: Conservatives all say
that a photo identification is necessary to do many relevant things
in life, such as flying on an airplane. However, Justin Levitt, an
associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, has proved
otherwise:
[W]hen
I got to Los Angeles Airport, I had no photo ID in my wallet,
government-isssued or otherwise. Instead, I had two credit cards, a
firing range card, a health insurance card, a blood donor card, a
coffee shop frequent visitor card, and a few business cards, all
without photos. [. . .] The TSA officer at the airport check-in
station examined my boarding pass, and asked me to step aside for
additional questions; [. . .] I estimate that the procedure lasted
approximately ten minutes longer than the normal procedure experienced by individuals in the same line who had photo
identification on hand. (Levitt)
Levitt
proved that a person doesn't have to use a photo identification to
fly on an airliner. He concludes that “Commercial vendors and
federal governments alike have demonstrated that when it is
financially or politically important to extend access even to
citizens without certain photo identification, such citizens can be
accommodated with minimal disruption to normal business practices”
(Levitt). He is correct in saying that the government should not
discriminate against citizens who do not possess a photo ID, but
there are other courses of action when verifying a person's identity.
An
instance of a failing liberal argument is the study done by the
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law
entitled Citizens Without Proof. It surveyed “voting-age
American citizens” (Spakovsky and Ingram) and tried to determine
the quantity of Americans who were possibly being disenfranchised by
voter ID laws. However, she fails to point out that the study does
not verify whether the sample of “voting-age citizens” are
registered to vote or are even likely voters. Disclarity happens
often when opponents of ID laws try to cite a statistic or study.
One
of the main questions raised when discussing the effects of voter
identification legislation is whether or not voter turnout is
affected. This is a pointed question, because, without fail, voter
ID laws do certainly reduce voter turnout, but that is solely caused
by the law's purpose, to deny ineligible voters the right (which is
not their right anyway) to
vote. Still, an author for the New York Times believes that there is
a specific reason for the decline in turnout. “Nevertheless, it’s
clear enough that stricter voter ID requirements are probably bad for
Democrats, on balance,” Nate Silver stated. “In almost every
state where the ID laws have been at issue, Republican governors and
legislatures have been on the side of passing stricter ones, while
Democrats have sought to block them.” Silver is blaming the voter
ID discrimination of Democrats on the Republican party. He claims
that Democrat turnout is negatively affected because of all the
“minorities” that are in the Democratic Party. Some of these
minorities include Hispanics, African-Americans, students, elderly,
and the economically challenged. However, Silver does not
acknowledge that in these minorities, there are people who are not
eligible to vote. For example, a Hispanic can be an illegal
immigrant, in which case he would not be allowed to vote. Also, a
student who has submitted an absentee ballot to his native state is
not allowed to vote using his student identification in the state in
which he is in college, logically. They are not all Democrats. For
example, there are some Hispanics, and African-Americans who are
strong conservatives, and the same goes for students, the
economically challenged, and the elderly. Voter identification
legislation does reduce voter turnout because it is a safeguard
against fraud, but that reduction is not discriminatory because the
law does not specifically state that a certain group of people are
not allowed to vote.
One
of the most-used statistical polls conducted concerning the influence
of ID legislation is Citizens Without Proof, but much of this
research is faulty or vague. Hans A. Von Spakovsky, who is a senior
legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Alex Ingram, a member of
the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation, write, “[It]
is the study most frequently cited by opponents of voter
identification requirements.” They are correct. Even Suevon Lee,
a ProPublica author with master's degrees from Yale (law) and
Northwestern University (journalism), uses a statistic from the
Brennan Center's report in her summary of voter ID arguments, when
she said, “According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11
percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID.” However,
she fails to point out that the study does not verify whether sample
of “voting-age citizens” are registered to vote or are even
likely voters. Additionally, this study does not meet standard
criteria for verifying its results. For example, the Brennan Center
only interviewed 987 individuals, and then proceeded to determine an
approximate representation of the Americans eighteen years or older,
who do not have the proper form of identification to vote (Spakovsky
and Ingram). “By neglecting to ask whether respondents were actual
or likely voters, registered voters, or even eligible to vote at
all,” Spakovsky and Ingram reason, “the study ignores the most
relevant data on this issue: the numbers of eligible citizens who
would have voted but could not because of voter identification laws.”
Furthermore, the questions that the survey did ask were ambiguous,
like the inquiry into if its participants had “readily available
identification,” or if they had citizenship papers “in a place
where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow”
(Spakovsky and Ingram). These questions can be obscure or confusing
to many people, even if they did have what the pollsters were asking
about. May I also point out that these questions are already partly
meaningless since elections are always anticipated months ahead of
the voting period, therefore anyone who has intentions of voting does
not need to obtain his identification “quickly” or “tomorrow.”
Finally, data from most other studies seems to negate the data in
Citizens Without Proof.
For instance, the Brennan Center study claims that “As many as
11
percent
of
voting-age United States citizens – more than
21
million
individuals
– do not have current unexpired government-issued photo
identification” (About the Issue). However, “A 2006 survey of
more than 36,000 voters found that only '23 people in the entire
sample—less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters' were
unable to vote because of an ID requirement” (Spakovsky and
Ingram). In summary, the Brennan Center's study claims widespread
discrimination of minorities caused by the ID laws. However, many
other studies contradict the Brennan Center survey, and it clearly
was not done according to professional protocol when it comes to
conducting surveys.
Voter identification requirements are the simplest form
of anti-fraud legislation for America's electoral system. Remaining
as the most manageable form of security, they are clear and easy to
follow, since the showing of an ID, photo or otherwise, is extremely
straightforward, and the process of verifying your identity if you do
not have an ID is fairly simple. Despite claims of racial
discrimination, the laws are not “poll taxes,” as Attorney
General Eric Holder claims (Greenhut). They are just a safeguard of
the electoral system of our country. Besides, any free electoral
system needs a safeguard against fraud. Otherwise, because of human
nature, as mentioned earlier, one party will always wish to exploit
the other.
The identification requirement is a basic necessity to
keeping American elections fair and objective. The Supreme Court
even agrees:
Justice
John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Crawford v.
Marion County Election Board that “flagrant examples” of voter
fraud “have been documented throughout our nation’s history by respected historians and journalists” which “demonstrate that
not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect
the outcome of a close election. (Berardelli)
In
other words, the Supreme Court rightly believes that fraud is an
imminent danger in free elections and must be stopped. This is why
voter identification legislation is a proven and reliable source of
defense against election fraud, whether it be in voter impersonation,
multiple-time voting, or illegal uses of absentee ballots.
Some
people view the legislation as racist or discriminatory, but it is
actually made for all American citizens to obey. The issue is that
often the lobbyists and activists claiming disenfranchisement fall
into making excuses for certain groups of people. One demonstration
of this is that the interest groups like that NAACP and the League of
United Latin American Citizens assert that voter ID laws
disenfranchise minorities according to race or socio-economic status,
and that they are dangerous. Attorney General Eric Holder said that
“Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to
get them and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might
need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes” (Greenhut). He is
right that some citizens might not have ID, but the citizens who are
Hispanics or African-Americans, who are registered to vote and
interested in voting should have obtained a valid form of ID in the
process. However, the necessity of a photo identification is only a
one-time cost to all voters, and the Supreme Court has required that
each state have provisions for free IDs to those who cannot afford
them. Also, since most Americans have to show an ID to register to
vote, the minorities are not “discriminated against” because a
large majority of them already have an ID. Logically, if an American
is on welfare, he must have some form of identification. The federal
government requires that. There is therefore no excuse to the person
who claims that he cannot afford an ID.
Another
protest of the victim-voter mentality is the vulnerability of elderly
people. Opponents of voter ID claim that the elderly are being
disenfranchised because many of them do not drive or lack a means of
transportation. First, this argument is like saying “I don't have
a car, so I cannot get a valid ID to vote.” There are other ways
to obtain a required photo ID besides getting a driver's license.
The DMV even offers an ID for non-driving citizens. The elderly
person could have either a friend or family member drive them to the
right place to get their ID. If the senior cannot drive and has no
friends or family nearby, then obtaining an absentee ballot is the
easiest way to vote. Just call the local government and follow the
standard procedures. Therefore, again, the elderly citizen is not as
disenfranchised as one might think.
The
newest minority that is being targeted by voter ID opposition is the
college student population. In an article entitled “How
Millennials Are Changing the Debate Over Voter ID Laws”,
Tess Vandendolder says that “. . .[T]here is another demographic
being harmed by these restrictive laws as well, namely, college
students and transient young people.” She means that the student
and young adult populations are disenfranchised because not many of
them have a car, and therefore do not have a driver's license or
valid form of photo ID. She is glad that
A
current case being heard in the North Carolina courts is being fought
by a new coalition of college students, as well as the usual
suspects of the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, which
argue that drivers' licenses are not a universally accessible form of
identification. [. . .] [T]his new coalition is instead arguing that the laws are at odds with the 26th Amendment which lowers
the voting age from 21 to 18 and declares that voting rights “shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.” (VandenDolder)
She
is also using the argument that if a person does not have a driver's
license, then they therefore cannot have a valid form of ID. This
argument is invalid because the driver's license is not the only
valid form of identification in the state of South Carolina.
However, VandenDolder believes that a college student should be able
to vote in the state in which they are in school and not have to mail
an absentee ballot to their home state. This requires that the
student be able to use their college identification to vote in that
state. This can be problematic because a student may absentee vote
in their state and then vote in their college state, casting two
votes. VandenDolder claims that this rarely ever happens, so
students should be able to vote with a student access card with a
photo. However, the student could just ask a parent to get an
absentee ballot for their state and vote legitimately in their home
state. In short, students are now calling voter ID laws
discriminatory because they cannot use a student identification card
to vote in some states. Finally, in her conclusion, VandenDolder
says that “Overall this shifting of the debate from one only
affecting minorities to an issue of importance to young people
everywhere means that voter ID laws will only become more
controversial in the coming years,” taking her premise and applying
it to all the states in this final statement. This is not a correct
premise because not every state disqualifies student IDs as a valid
form of identification.
There
is a history behind the victim-voter mentality. In 2000, the Florida
presidential election caused a great stir about voter responsibility.
The issue of the day was whether or not ballots with chads intact
counted as real votes. A chad is the punched-off piece of a ballot.
Chads make vote counting difficult because the voting machine reads
chads inconsistently, causing incorrect election results that, in a
close enough election, may affect the outcome of the election. The
chad ballots caused confusion for some voters, who claimed that the
ballot instructions were confusing (Sharp). However, each polling
station explained to the voters how to use that ballot, and at every
site there were posters that read:
Note:
If you make a mistake, return your ballot card and obtain another.
AFTER
VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCHED AND THERE ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON
THE BACK OF THE CARD. (Whitman 13)
So,
the voting sites gave ballot instructions, with specific and detailed
explanations, in all capital letters, on an informative paper that
the voters could all see. This is the issue with a victim-voter
mentality: voters now have no responsibility to vote correctly or
provide what voting law prescribes in order to vote. This concept
can then be applied to voter ID laws. In other words, a voter cannot
be responsible to show an ID because the law may end up
disenfranchising him. This mentality is incorrect because then there
cannot be any safeguard on the electoral system, which means it will
quickly decay into disorder. Andrew Sullivan, senior editor of The
New Republic, points out that “a strict, clear, technical
standard for a vote should be maintained at all costs” (Whitman
15). He believes that legislation concerning voting should be
welcomed because it maintains order in elections and ensures that
responsibilities of voters be upheld as necessity. Some try to
diminish the responsibility of a voter to be honest, by claiming that
any requirements disenfranchise those who do not obey them.
Lastly,
the electoral process was designed in a way such that elections are
free, but require the “virtuous people” that our Founding Fathers
spoke about. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Only
a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." John
Adams also believed that "[I]t is religion and morality alone
which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely
stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
They had all studied the history of government such that they knew
human nature could not be governed without virtue. This principle
must be applied to voting. Since some cannot vote responsibly, there
have to be laws that keep order. Because those voters cannot vote
correctly (i.e. govern themselves), the government must now make laws
to govern them. The entire course of human nature is summed up in
this argument.
Obviously, voter ID laws would not be necessary if
humans were perfect, but we are not. The legislation that provides
requirements for voter identification are actually necessary to the
well-being of our electoral system, they are an indispensable factor
in protecting the system against fraud, and they are not prejudiced
against minorities. The voter actually has a responsibility to show
the valid form of identification, when it is at all possible. The ID
requirements allow ID to be given to those who cannot afford it, so
we do not need to worry about discrimination. Gene Berardelli said
that “what should be a debate about preserving the integrity of the
electoral system has been hijacked by the politics of division.”
He is absolutely right. If everyone—liberals and
conservatives—would just use their energy to educate voters on this
issue, there would be no need of protest against such practical laws.
Works
Cited
“About
the Issue." VoteRiders. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
http://www.voteriders.org/about/issue.
Berardelli,
Gene. “Hard Evidence Supports the Need for Voter ID Laws- IVN.us.”
IVNus. N.P., 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Sep. 2014.
http://ivn.us/2014/01/16/hard-evidence-supports-need-voter-id-laws/.
Brown,
Susan S. “A case for Voter ID.” Commentary A Case for
Voter ID Comments. N.p., 26
Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Sep. 2014.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2014/03/26/a-case-for-voter-id/.
"Courts Block Voter ID Laws in Texas, Wisconsin."
Gopusa.com. Associated Press, 10 Oct. 2014. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
http %3A%2F%2Fwww.gopusa.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2F10%2F10%2Fcourts-block-voter-id-laws-in-texas- wisconsin%2F%3Fsubscriber%3D1.
Greenhut,
Stephen. “Requiring ID to Vote Is Not Racist.” US
News. U.S. News & World
Report, 13 July 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-photo-id-be-required-to- vote/requiring-id-to-vote-is-not-racist.
Lee,
Suevon. “Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID
Laws.” Top Stories RSS.
N.p., 5 Nov. 2012. Web. 16 Sep. 2014.
http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to- know-about-voter-id-laws.
Levitt,
Justin. “Summary Judgements: Company at 30,000 Feet: Plane Travel
and the Voter ID Controversy.” Company at 30,000
Feet: Plane Travel and the Voter ID Controversy.
N.p., 22 Oct. 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.
http://summaryjudgements.lls.edu/2012/10/company-at-30000-feet-plane-travel-
and_2161.html.
Shanton, Karen, and Wendy Underhill. “Costs of Voter
Identification.” (n.d.): n. pag. June 2014. Web. 26 Sep.
2014 http://www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/elect/Voter_ID_Costs_June2014.pdf.
Sharp, Deborah. "Florida Ready to Move Past Chads
of 2000 Election." USA Today 14 Aug. 2002: n. pag.
Print.
Silver,
Nate. “Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws.”
FiveThirtyEight Measuring the Effects of Voter
Identification Laws Comments.
New York Times, 05 July 2012. Web. 26 Sep. 2014.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/? _php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=/.
Underhill,
Wendy. "Voter Identification Requirements | Voter ID Laws."
Voter Identification Requirements | Voter ID Laws.
National Conference of State Legislatures, 21 Oct. 2014. Web. 21
Oct. 2014.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx.
VandenDolder, Tess. “How Millennials Are Changing the
Debate Over Voter ID Laws.” InTheCapital. N.p., 7 July
2014. Web. 16 Sep. 2014.
http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/07/07/how-millennials-are-changing-the-debate- over-voter-id-laws/.
Von Spakovsky, Hans A., and Alex Ingram. “Without
Proof: The Unpersuasive Case Against Voter Identification.” The
Heritage Foundation. N.p., 24 Aug. 2014. Web. 16 Sep. 2014.
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/without-proof-the-unpersuasive-case-against-voter- identification#_ftn5.
Whitman, Mark. “Setting the Stage/Bad Intent.”
Florida 2000: A Sourcebook on the Contested Presidential
Election.” Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner, 2003. 1-15. Print.
