Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:02:33.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Much Ado About Nothing? An Empirical Assessment of the Georgia Voter Identification Statute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

M. V. Hood III  and
Charles S. Bullock III
M. V. Hood III*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Athens, USA
Charles S. Bullock III
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Athens, USA
*
M. V. Hood III, Department of Political Science, University of Georgia, 104 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA Email: th@uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Voter identification (ID) policies, especially those of the photo ID variety, have been hotly contested over the last few years. The primary concern surrounding these statutes amounts to lower turnout, especially among certain groups in the electorate, such as racial/ethnic minorities. In 2007, the way was cleared for Georgia to implement a new statute requiring registrants to present a government-issued photo ID to vote. Using population data on registrants from two election cycles coupled with information on a subgroup of registrants known to lack photo ID, we conduct a policy impact analysis of the Georgia voter ID law. We find that the new law did produce a suppression effect among those registrants lacking proper ID. Substantively, the law lowered turnout by about four-tenths of a percentage point in 2008. However, we find no empirical evidence to suggest that there is a racial or ethnic component to this suppression effect.

Keywords

voter identificationelection administrationGeorgia
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 394 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, R. Michael, Bailey, Delia, and Katz, Jonathan. 2008. The Effect of Voter Identification Laws on Turnout. Pasadena, CA: CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R., Michael, , Hall, Thad E., and Hyde, Susan D., eds. 2008. Election Fraud. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2009. “Effects of Identification Requirements on Voting: Evidence from the Experiences of Voters on Election Day.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(January): 127–30.Google Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae, Bryant, Lisa Ann, Hall, Thad E., Saunders, Kyle, and Alvarez, Michael. 2010. “A New Barrier to Participation: Heterogeneous Application of Voter Identification Policies.” Electoral Studies 29(1): 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baretto, Matt A., Nuno, Stephen A., and Sanchez, Gabriel R.. 2007. “Voter ID Requirements and the Disenfranchisements of Latino, Black and Asian Voters.” Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Baretto, Matt A., Nuno, Stephen A., and Sanchez, Gabriel R.. 2009. “The Disproportionate Impact of Voter-ID Requirements on the Electorate—New Evidence from Indiana.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (January): 111–6.Google Scholar
Common Cause v. Billups. 2007. United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Minnite, Lorraine C.. 2009. “Modeling Problems in the Voter Identification—Voter Turnout Debate.” Election Law Journal 8(2): 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, M. V. III, Charles, S., and Bullock, III. 2008. “Worth A Thousand Words? An Analysis of Georgia's Voter Identification Statute.” American Politics Research 36(June): 555–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. 1995. “Attitudes, Opportunities, and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 48:191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minnite, Lorraine C. 2010. The Myth of Voter Fraud. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, Lawrence B. 1995. Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Muhlhausen, David B., and Sikich, Keri Weber. 2007. New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout. A Report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis. www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm (Accessed June 18, 2012).Google Scholar
Mycoff, Jason D., Wagner, Michael W., and Wilson, David C.. 2009. “The Empirical Effects of Voter-ID Laws: Present or Absent?” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(January): 121–6.Google Scholar
Primo, David M., Jacobmeier, Matthew L., and Millyo, Jeffrey. 2007. “Estimating the Impact of State Policies and Institutions with Mixed-Level Data.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7(4): 446–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Sobel, Richard, and Smith, Robert Ellis. 2009. “Voter-ID Laws Discourage Participation, Particularly among Minorities, and Trigger a Constitutional Remedy in Lost Representation.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(January): 107–10.Google Scholar
Vercellotti, Timothy, and Anderson, David. 2006. Protecting the Franchise or Restricting It? The Effects of Voter Identification Requirements on Turnout. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Vercellotti, Timothy, and Anderson, David. 2009. “Voter-Identification Requirements and the Learning Curve.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(January): 117–20.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J.. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar