Talk:Voter identification laws in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Zahussen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tic Tag Tow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a new, updated and VERY different map on NCSL

Just a heads up that a new map is on NCSL I may try to upload it myself if you don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.69.67.13 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The National Council of State Legislatures Map is misleading, inaccurate and should be removed

The captions on the map indicate that "No document required to vote" for many states, where the majority of voters have per-registered using photo ID's. Yes there are allowances for voters who don't have documentation. Other voters registered in the precinct can vouch for them, but that is a rare exception and I have not been able to find any statistics on how often that exception occurs. By labeling entire states as 'no document required' the map suggests that no process exists to prove identity and residency. Furthermore if you read the full "Voter ID Laws" report from NCSL, those states with "Strict" ID have exceptions:

"Exceptions to Voter Identification Requirements Most states with strict voter identification requirements make some exceptions. These exceptions may include people who:

Have religious objections to being photographed (Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin). Are indigent (Indiana and Tennessee). “Have a reasonable impediment” to getting an ID (South Carolina). Do not have an ID due to a recent natural disaster (Texas). Are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking and have a "confidential listing" (Wisconsin).

So how can a state have "strict" rules but allow exceptions? Maybe the label should be reworded as "not entirely strict". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.46.155 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The displayed USA map is inaccurate & needs to be changed

Neither VT nor WY has a voter ID law. I believe the same in true in DC. http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx Can someone fix the displayed map for Voter ID laws? Guy1890 (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Washington State has all mail voting. No voters are impacted by any voter ID legislation that may still be on the books.Paulag1955 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC) https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faq_vote_by_mail.aspx

The text of the article indicates the map came from [1]. Following that link, you see that the NCSL still classifies the State of Washington as requiring an ID document, which does not have to have a photo. I suggest you ask the NCSL to change their map, or find a more up-to-date map from some other reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

North Carolina not only does not require an ID to vote, the poll workers are not allowed to see one if shown to them! I tried. The map is crazy wrong and needs editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.183.223.51 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

More info on Colorado?

Does anyone have any more info on what the potential impact is of the existing CO Voter ID law? See: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx "The designated election official shall attempt to verify that an elector who cast a provisional ballot is eligible to vote. The designated election official or designee shall complete the preliminary verification of the elector's eligibility to vote before the ballot is counted. (§1-8.5-105)"

Does this mean that there is a strict follow-up required on the part of the voter or not in order to get their provisional ballot to actually count for something? I can't tell from the limited info provided above. Guy1890 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of verified content

I would like to point out, that neutrally worded content, was removed without giving a good explanation, the diff is here.

Here is the reference:

• Josh Rogin (6 November 2012). "Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system". Foreign Policy. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 6 November 2012. The most often noted difference between American elections among the visitors was that in most U.S. states, voters need no identification.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The article cited does not mention US Voter ID law. — goethean ॐ 16:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where perhaps would one suggest the reliable source be best utilized?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast's wording seems to imply that whenever one finds a reliable source, one should always use the source in some Wikipedia article. This is not the case. We can decide there is no need to mention the source in any Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed.

Wow, I just read the "definition" of what "Strict" means for IDs. It is total garbage. My objection is that the article CLAIMS that a paragraph in quotes explains the difference between strict and non-strict requirements. IT DOES NOT. After reading the article, I have zero idea what is meant by (non-strict) ID requirement. Its my (ignorant) understanding that provisional voting is a Constitutional REQUIREMENT when ID is required but not furnished. Therefore, the whole explanation of what provisional balloting is might be interesting and useful but it does NOT distinguish between "strict" and "non-strict". Obviously. Perhaps the article should be taken literally and the implication that in 'non-strict' jurisdictions, people attempting to vote without ID are prohibited, while in "strict" jurisdictions, provisional ballots are cast. Of course, this turns the meaning of the word "strict" on its head, but there is NO other information in the article which informs us of what happens in jurisdictions with non-strict ID requirements. The NCSL categories, which form the core of this article, seem to be meaningless babble. Look, lets think about this logically: the most open voting is that anyone who shows up (or requests a mail-in ballot) can vote. This of course means that 7 year olds in person as well as Cocker Spaniels requesting mail-in ballots can vote. From here, it gets more complicated since ID (proof of identity (possibly photographic), age, residency status, citizenship, and felon-status (I'm not sure about mental competence)) may be required either well prior to the election as Registration OR on or close to election day (walk-in voting) OR some combination of both. Requirements are established by Law, what happens with inadequate ID, or failure to register are two separate, but related, questions.72.172.10.194 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that the article is pretty clear on the distinction that "strict" voter ID laws require that a provisional ballot be cast (when a voter shows up to vote without the needed voter ID) instead of a regular ballot (that's always counted no matter what), and that a provisional ballot isn't actually counted unless the voter takes some substantial action (showing up with a valid voter ID - photo or not - or showing up with all of the materials that would be needed to get a valid voter ID) within a few days of the actual election date.

"Perhaps the article should be taken literally and the implication that in 'non-strict' jurisdictions, people attempting to vote without ID are prohibited, while in 'strict' jurisdictions, provisional ballots are cast." No, it's really almost the exact opposite. In states that have "strict" voter ID laws, it's harder to cast an actual ballot that gets counted in an actual election than in other states. In other words, the voting laws are more strict in states that have "strict" voter ID laws.

"This of course means that 7 year olds in person as well as Cocker Spaniels requesting mail-in ballots can vote." No, that's not really the case at all. People that are obviously not old enough to vote can't vote, and non-humans aren't allowed to vote either. I'm not personally aware of any "mental competence" standards for voting in the USA.

"what happens with inadequate ID, or failure to register are two separate, but related, questions." Again, not really. Some states have laws that make it relatively easy to register to vote (same day voter registration, etc.). This article here tries to deal with voter ID laws in the USA, period. Guy1890 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

NEW SECTION: First Time Voter Requirements

Would anyone be opposed to me adding a new section on First Time Voter Requirements? It would be short, but I think it would greatly benefit young adults and immigrants who are newly eligible to vote so they can look in one place to see what exactly they would need to vote their first time, in addition to their state laws. Kasha.08 (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section below that you recently added to this article. This article here is about voter identification laws, not voter registration. The website that you tried to cite has already been used several in places in the article already, and what you're really trying to refer to below are the requirements that many U.S. states have when it comes to initial voter registration. From what I understand, you're not really registered to vote unless you prove your identity through using a "current & valid photo ID or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter" that's trying to register in the first place. I know that I had to do that when filling out the federal form that can be used in any of the fifty states of the USA. This edit by you was also one of your first edits "Kasha.08", which seems a tad odd. Guy1890 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Kasha.08. The material you added is actually covered a couple places already in the article, including in the article's lead and in the History section ("In 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act into law, which required all first-time voters in federal elections to show photo or non-photo ID upon either registration or arrival at the polling place.") But if you want to expand this material to include the particular types of ID specified in the Help America Vote Act, I think that's beneficial, and welcome your additions.

Guy1890, I agree with you that there's a difference between ID that must be produced at the polls and ID that must be produced when registering to vote, but both of these concepts are "voter ID laws". In any event, what Kasha.08 added to this article concerns the Help America Vote Act ID requirements, which require first-time voters who register by mail to provide voter ID either at the time of registration or when appearing at the polls, so it actually fits under both concepts. Thus, Kasha.08's additions appear relevant to this article any way you cut it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a complex area. For example, in my state, the requirements for voter registration are described at the Vermont Secretary of State website and on the application. As described in the material about the Help America Vote Act, first-time voters who apply individually by mail must enclose a photocopy of acceptable ID. But voters who visit their town clerk in person to apply need not supply ID. Also, voters who apply as part of a voter registration drive need not provide ID, even though the organizers of the drive might mail the applications to the appropriate town clerk. Although the applicants applying in person or through a drive need not show ID, they must enter the number of a Vermont driver license, Vermont non-driver state ID, or the last 4 digits of their social security card, or contact the Secretary of State. No doubt the requirements for other states would vary. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Kasha.08's addition concerns only federal requirements for voter ID; states may choose to have stricter requirements. For example, Arizona and Kansas currently require anyone who registers to vote to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, and they are currently suing the federal government over whether they may require this of voters who register using the federal voter registration form. But while I think this article could certainly benefit from having more state-specific material, elaborating on the federal requirements of HAVA as Kasha.08 proposes is also worthwhile. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was aware that the source I used has already been cited in a few other places, however, (and maybe I missed some)the information I found in the article that used this source was from 2012, and the information was out of date. There have been many updates to the site, especially in regards to the information about Voter ID Laws, and I wanted to make sure it was up-to-date. Thank you all for your input and for explaining why the section I added should or should not have been included. I still think it would be helpful for first time voters to see this on here even though it's not "voter registration," but I respect your opinions on the topic as well. And yes, Guy 1890, that was my first Wikipedia edit thus far. I have done a lot of research on this controversial topic lately, and felt the current article was lacking in some areas, and is highly outdated in others. I don't want to step on toes, but I do want to help bring the page current and correct for the rest of the Wikipedia community. I look forward to working with you all!Kasha.08 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

First Time Voters (proposed edit)

In an article from Sept. 2014 called "Voter Identification Requirements: Voter ID Laws" by Wendy Underhill, a NCSL senior policy specialist working on election-related issues, we learn that "In addition to the laws governing what identification all voters must show at the polls, first time voters may face additional requirements. The federal Help America Vote Act (section 15483(b)(2)(A)) mandates that all states require identification from first-time voters who register to vote by mail and have not provided verification of their identification at the time of registration. The act lists a "current and valid photo identification" or "a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter” as acceptable forms of ID."

• Underhill, Wendy (12 Sept 2014). "Voter Identification Requirements: Voter ID Laws". National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). N.p. Retrieved 6 October 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Kasha.08 (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

History Section Update

Adding some history information with actual history of Voter ID Laws. For example, that they began in 1950 when SC became the first state to request some kind of ID at the polls. No photo required, just some document with the voter's name on it. Then Hawaii joined in 1970, Texas a year later, etc.Kasha.08 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement about voter fraud 'studies have shown is "vanishingly rare."' is unsupported by the reference. That reference being a New York Times article on election laws (not voter fraud) which includes this single offhand comment. We need something better. (I've been away, sorry if I'm doing this incorrectly) KevinInMfrg (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Date" part of "Laws by State" section QUESTION

What are we wanting for the "date" part of the table? Some of the dates are there and current, then others have a blank date, but a description in the section explaining the laws that things are currently in motion. I'm a little confused. Should we put the "original date of implementation" in as well as a "most recent update" date? Some of the states, like Alaska, were implemented years and years ago, but are currently in revision. Or South Carolina who was the first state in 1950, but has recently updated and has a date with the most recent update. Shouldn't we put the official, most recent date in the "date" spot, and the revisions in the "History" section instead of the spot where the actual law goes? Thoughts? This just seems very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasha.08 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

History is still terribly spotty...

The history section of this article is strangely partial to the point of being misinformed and misleading.

1. This is missing the whole list of states (Missouri in 2002, Alabama, Colorado, Montana, North and South Dakota in 2003) which actually started this thing with "non-strict" ID requirements.
2. Arizona's law (passed in 2004) is a "strict" law, but it is NOT a photo-ID law (this is even acknowledged later in the article in the list of states with the map).
3. Georgia joined Indiana in 2005 when they passed the stricter ID laws (these are significant because they're the first photo-id laws!).

Most importantly, you can't have a historical section without providing at least a paragraph about Jim Crow laws with their voter tests and poll taxes to explain the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which provides the background for why voter ID laws are controversial. You have to mention the Twenty-fourth Amendment! Furthermore, the history section must place into context the relevant federal laws, including the 2006 "Help America Vote" act which is barely mentioned, but which has shaped the conversation around these laws.

For additional reference, see the NCSL Voter Id History which is already cited repeatedly in this article, and which contains section and title citations of the state laws in question. -Jaykul (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any sources for the claim that "Missouri in 2002, Alabama, Colorado, Montana, North and South Dakota in 2003" "actually started this thing with 'non-strict' ID requirements"?

"Arizona's law (passed in 2004) is a 'strict' law, but it is NOT a photo-ID law". Actually, one can apparently vote with or without a photo ID in AZ, they just will need more than one form of ID if one doesn't have a photo ID that meets the state's current requirements. See: Arizona Proposition 200 (2004) as well.

"Georgia joined Indiana in 2005 when they passed the stricter ID laws"...which is highlighted in the article right now: "Existing law tightened in 2005 to require a photo ID"

I've added some links to the Wikipedia articles on Jim Crow laws & Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution for now. Guy1890 (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Push for Photo ID

This section should really be changed to Varying requirements for Identification, so that the paragraphs describing each of the different types of photo ID laws (as quoted from the NCSL site in the "State-by-State" section), can be moved up there to provide background for the rest of the article. -Jaykul (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

New Hampshire (2015)

New Hampshire passed a "strict" voter identification requirement. In relevant part, NH RSA 658:28 (2015) provides:

What type of ID will I need to vote? • Driver’s license issued by any state or federal government; • Non-driver ID card issued by NH DMV or motor vehicle agency of another state; • Photo ID card for “voting identification only” issued by NH DMV (RSA 260:21); • United States armed services identification card; • United States passport or passcard; • NH student ID card (see more information below); • A photo ID not mentioned above, but determined to be legitimate by the moderator, supervisors of the checklist, or clerk of a town, ward or city. If any person authorized to challenge a voter does so under this provision, the voter shall be required to fill out a challenged voter affidavit before obtaining a ballot. • Verification of the voter’s identity by a moderator or supervisor of the checklist or clerk of a town, ward or city (not a ballot clerk). If any person authorized to challenge a voter does so under this provision, the voter shall be required to fill out a challenged voter affidavit before obtaining a ballot.

The NH Secretary of State offers:What if I do not have an approved photo ID? Any voter who does not present an approved photo ID will be permitted to vote after executing a challenged voter affidavit. In addition, the voter shall have their photograph taken by the moderator or assistant moderator, which shall be attached to the challenged voter affidavit. If the voter objects to the photograph requirement because of religious beliefs, the voter may execute an affidavit of religious exemption that will be attached to the challenged voter affidavit instead of the photograph. A voter who does not have an approved photo ID may obtain a free photo ID for voting purposes only by presenting a voucher from their town/city clerk or the Secretary of State to any NH DMV office that issues identification. Is there any post-election action required by me after I vote without an approved photo ID? If you filled out a challenged voter affidavit in order to vote on Election Day, you will receive a verification letter from the Secretary of State requesting confirmation that you voted in the election. If you do not respond in writing to the Secretary of State within 90 days of the date it was mailed, the Attorney General will conduct an investigation to determine whether fraudulent voting ooccurred.

Source: http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589949915

Because there is a requirement for acceptable identification to be provided before a ballot be counted, this should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.108.112 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Disparate Impact

PLEASE do not delete or add studies without seriously considering the content and methodology. A cursory glance at the abstract is NOT adequate.

1) The Ariel White study on information request response rates definitely falls under the umbrella of disparate impact. I added a sentence introducing the disparate impact connection, and I included the actual response rates.

2) The Ansolabehere paper looks fine. Increased incidences of voter ID requests within the same election system could definitely constitute disparate impact.

However, primary voting is not the issue at hand. First, ID requests in primaries are based on party rules, not on legislation. This is a “voter ID laws” page, not a “party primary rules” page. Secondly, the stated differences in ID requests are inseparably confounded by party affiliation. Your average black and white voters participate in completely different primary systems as black voters vote almost exclusively in the Democratic primary, and thus rules by that party increase the average requests experienced by black primary votes. The insinuation that race is a direct factor is unfounded based on this data.

3) The Cobb and Atkeson studies both offer useful insights. I expanded on their findings and stated limitations. When adding studies like this, PLEASE include a brief discussion. Don’t just paste a vague conclusion supposedly supported by the new articles.

4) I agree that the Wilson study should be eliminated, though not due to relevance. The study fails to include one of the most fundamental controls- irrelevant images (eg an image of a daisy, or an airplane, or a fireman, or any other random person or object). It's well-established that random image primes can shift response rates by some baseline level, and a researcher in this type of study must prove that the response shift for the image of interest (ie the black voter) is greater than the baseline shifts due to irrelevant images. The Wilson study includes no such evidence.

Even without that control, the study might still be admissible if the shift in opinion were very large, but the shift in opinion is not large. Of their three models, only two show a statistically significant shift in opinion between the 'no image' and 'black-voter image', and that shift is barely significant (0.01<p<0.05). A series of irrelevant image controls would, in all likelihood, eliminate any significance.

Though not mentioned in the wikipedia page summary, the Wilson study includes other inappropriate assumptions, such that opposition to affirmative action= racial resentment, which strongly suggests biased study design. I remember seeing another study by this same author with similar errors, so please be wary when adding David Wilson studies to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingsoc94 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's getting way too time-consuming for me to engage in these back-and-forth edits (though I certainly appreciate that wikipedia editors scrutinize the material presented on Wiki pages) and re-reading of the studies. In short, my views are:

1. 1: fair.
2. 2: I disagree. I think it's relevant to note how voter requests are conducted in primaries. If I recall correctly, Ansolabehere claims to have controlled for relevant factors that might play into voter ID requests in both of elections studied. The 2009 paper cites another paper (which I do not have time to read) and which has not been added yet. For future edits, it might be worthwhile to check the original paper and cite it here.
3. 3: fair.
4. 4: If I recall correctly, racial resentment is not just measured by opposition to affirmative action but also questions regarding whether 'blacks are undeserving of success' or something along those lines (I can't remember precisely). I think it's fair that the wiki page chooses not to opt for the author's terminology of 'racial resentment' though. As for relevance of the study's other findings, I think its pushing it for a wikipedia editor to decide what's a worthwhile finding when the study has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. If an editor wants to qualify the study's findings, it would be better to add that after mentioning the study's findings as opposed to just deleting the study.

Given the immense scrutiny and qualifications that the studies added by me has gotten (though noticeably only the studies I added that cast some aspect of voter ID laws in a negative light), I think it would be fair for the regular editors on this page to apply similar scrutiny to other reports and studies cited on the page. See for instance the alleged instances of voter fraud that are described by poor sources (Daily Caller), based on reports and statements that are vague, and could amount to clerical errors. The editors may also want to qualify the studies I added that cast voter ID in a neutral or positive light. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The section on fraud prevention could be improved by taking account of this Brennan Center report: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf. The section should also clearly start with the number of confirmed instances of voter fraud instead of starting out with allegations of questionable credibility or the number of dead voters. Ansolaebhere's quote in the 2009 piece might be a good start. Various fact-check reports and Brennan Center pieces would almost certainly give decent estimated of confirmed cases of fraud that could have been prevented by stricter voter ID laws. The section could also improve by clarifying what kind of fraud that the strict voter ID laws are aimed at preventing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

More links to add?

Hello, I think that the following links would provide valuable information to the article:

• Texans Voting On Super Tuesday Have To Abide By A Racist Voter ID Law - Samantha Lachma, The Huffington Post, 1 March 2016
• Years After Voter ID Law, Alternative IDs Confuse Texas County Officials - Hannah McBride, The Texas Observer, 1 March 2016 -NaBUru38 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Displayed USA map needs updating

Please update Alabama and South Carolina to match the data on the page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEJJLL (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Trim the lede

I think this part of the lede needs trimming or simplification. It's difficult to read. I don't know the legal challenges well enough to properly copyedit it:

• Voter ID laws have been controversial in the United States. In 1999, Virginia was the first state to generate controversy when it attempted to implement a pilot voter ID program. The proposal was killed by the Virginia Supreme Court.[1] Since 2012, 17 states have instituted voting restrictions.[2] By 2016, 10 states enacted new voting restrictions (not all requiring voter ID).[3] Lawsuits have been filed against many of these requirements. Five federal lawsuits involving Native Americans have been filed against new state voter registration laws passed since the Supreme Court 2013 decision overturning a portion of the Voting Rights Act requiring federal approval before such changes. Three were filed in 2016. Suits in North Dakota, Utah, South Dakota and Arizona claim that new voting rules passed in these majority-Republican states are discriminatory and could reduce voting by tribal members, who tend to back Democrats. A suit in Alaska, for example, claimed the state violated federal rules by failing to translate voting materials for tribal voters. By the end of July 2016, federal courts have ruled on five voter ID or registration cases in which restrictions had been challenged in five states: Ohio, Kansas, Texas, North Carolina and Wisconsin.[4] While the Texas law was not overturned, the state was advised it needed to have alternative processes in place that were not discriminatory before the November 2016 election. A North Carolina law was overturned as "its provisions deliberately 'target African-Americans'... in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls."[5] Parts of Wisconsin's voter ID laws were ruled to be unconstitutional, and it was advised to accept more forms of identification for the 2016 election.[5] On August 1, 2016 a federal judge ruled that North Dakota's restrictive law placed an undue burden on Native Americans, and alternative forms of ID had to be accepted for the 2016 election.[6]

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oregon and Washington State "have no polling stations"?

The claim is made in this article that the states of Oregon and Washington do not have polling stations and that voting is done by mail. As someone who has voted in Oregon at a polling station before, this claim seems rather unlikely. Is this a simple English misteak, or is there something I don't know about? TheNavigatrr (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If you find multiple reliable sources, not your own, please share them here and work towards a consensus. Personal experience is basically just WP:OR, AFAIK. DN (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Right now, the positive claim that these states "have no polling station" is without a source, let alone "multiple reliable" ones. While there are two linked references (one for each) but the Oregon one is dead, while the Washington one only links to a Registration print out page.

The claim is extraordinary and has been disputed by TheNavigatrr above. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

For Oregon, see https://sos.oregon.gov/voting/Pages/drop-box-locator.aspx and https://sos.oregon.gov/voting/pages/voteinor.aspx

The overall tone of these official pages indicates the information about how to vote should be comprehensive. There is no description about how to vote at a traditional in-person polling place; the nearest thing they have is an official drop box to drop off the ballot, which can also be mailed in.

We can't require or expect Oregon to make official statements about what kinds of voting they don't provide. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a OPB interview which specifically states Oregon is mail only. I'll add it to the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect anything. But without a source, the claim has to go. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation for the State of Washington. The old cite had no pertinent information; the new one supports the claim. There are now citations to support the claims that neither Oregon nor Washington have polling places. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

International Comparison

The author is misquoting from the source he is giving. He lists citizens from European countries that are "automatically provided with a photo ID upon reaching adulthood". The reference he is giving, however, only states that said countries have a national identity policy and make it easier for their citizens to acquire said documents, and not as the writer misquotes, provide ID documents automatically

Laws By State table needs updating

Hi, I just updated the state lists to reflect the 2018 laws (was previously 2016) using the same source that was referenced [2] - this means the map is now out of date (as already pointed out here) but also the Laws by State table at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panckreous (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I updated the map.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Voter Identification laws in the United States → Voter identification laws in the United States – per MOS:CAPITALIZATION, no evidence that "identification" is a proper name or in need of capitalization. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This seems like an uncontroversial technical request to me. But there are a couple of other articles that should also be moved to match this: Voter Identification laws and Voter Identification laws in Pennsylvania. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Note - opened discussions for those two articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like someone moved all these similar articles from "Voter ID laws..." and just kept the capital I. Station1 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per the above. Nothing about "Identification" here warrants capitalization. BD2412 T 06:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the pages mentioned could just be moved without RMs. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support No reason to capitalize. ~ HAL333 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Virginia

Virginia has a strict voter ID law. You *cannot* vote without photo ID. Jazmatician (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

reverted update to "Public opinion" section and inclusion in lead

Snooganssnoogans, you wholesale reverted my good-faith edit attempting to update the public opinion section and add public opinion to the lead, asserting that the data I included were "cherrypicked". This is false; I added the most recent available poll I could find, by Monmouth, showing 80% of Americans in favor of voter ID laws, including significant majorities of both parties. This wasn't "cherrypicked", unrepresentative, or an outlier (at least not per CNN's polling and election analytics editor)—rather it almost perfectly matches the most recent poll numbers in the article, which are 10 years old. Or were those "cherrypicked" as well? Here's a Gallup poll from 2016, showing the exact same 80% in 2016. And a Pew poll from 2018, showing 76%. I haven't "cherrypicked" those; including the Monmouth poll, they're simply the top search results for "voter ID law polls". A few questions:

• Do you not think the "Public opinion" section should be updated?
• Do you not believe that public opinion should be included in the lead?
• Why do you believe the poll I linked to, which I took pains to note was the most recent I could find, was "cherrypicked"?
• Is there recent polling you believe to be less "cherrypicked"?

Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Public opinion on the issue is strongly shaped by partisanship, as well as ill-founded beliefs in the prevalence of voter fraud,[3], which your addition omitted. Your numbers were cherry-picked because surveys indicate support as low as in the 50s, yet you of course somehow managed to throw in the poll with the largest possible skew. Furthermore, the survey data that you crammed into the article omits that the public is in general opposed to restrictions on voting. I am in principle opposed to cramming public opinion data into articles (precisely due to cherry-picking and the fact that views on issues are fluid, ambiguous and subject to change depending on question wording), in particular leads. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, some thoughts—as well as a few italicized questions for you:

• There was already a substantial amount of public opinion information in the article, with near-identical numbers—what is your issue with adding (or substituting) more recent data that shows the same thing? And are the numbers already in the article "cherry-picked", and would you remove them, as well?
• I do take issue with your contention that I "cherry-picked" numbers; as I already explained, I did not. "[Y]et you of course somehow managed to throw in the poll with the largest possible skew" seems gratuitous, and I appreciate your future commitment to WP:AGF. I didn't think there was anything even slightly controversial about the broad support for voter ID laws reflected in the numbers I included. As I pointed out in response to your reversion, CNN's expert clearly said this was not an outlier in an article titled "Voter ID requirements are really popular…"—I assume that constitutes a reliable secondary source—and I've corroborated his assessment by including other, near-identical polling from recent years above. But if you're going to revert edits by claiming the data within is "cherry-picked" and unrepresentative, then obviously the onus is on you to provide some citations that support your position. And of course if there is equally reliable and widely reported recent polling that suggests public opinion is far lower, by all means add it. In the meantime, would you kindly cite some RS that support your contention that the data I included are, broadly-speaking, unrepresentative?
• The partisan divide was clear in my edit, and elsewhere in the article—how does that necessitate removing updated data, which indeed included that partisan divide? Public opinion on virtually every political/politicized issue has large partisan divides—and I posit that what is, in fact, most notable about public opinion on voter ID laws vis a vis partisanship is not that there's a divide, but that they have far less of a divide and far more consensus than other contentious issues—including many of the "restrictions on voting" to which you refer. In other words, public opinion on the instant issue is less "strongly shaped by partisanship" than other similar issues—and many of the sources already in the article, as well as the ones I've cited, make note of that. Do you concur with that assessment?
• Public opinion, by definition, is often affected by "ill-founded beliefs"—that's, broadly speaking, what separates it from expert opinion. But surely it's not necessary to qualify every statement on public opinion by stating what purported "ill-founded beliefs" may have influenced it?
• You write that you reverted my edit due to your broad-based "principle" about "cramming public opinion [sic] data into articles"—that strikes me as problematic, since editing isn't meant to be an application of personal principles, but rather a way of contributing to an encyclopedia.
• You say both that you reverted my edit because you don't believe public opinion should be in the leads of articles—and also because it doesn't include more about public opinion. You complain that I've left out that the "public is in general opposed to restrictions on voting" as well as "ill-founded beliefs" that may underlie public opinion—but aren't those at least as "fluid, ambiguous, and subject to change" as broad public opinion itself?
• In the same vein, this isn't an article on "restrictions on voting" writ large—it's about voter ID laws. I don't see an issue with pointing out that voter ID enjoys more support than other voting requirements (although it would seem to further violate your principle against including public-opinion)—and of course you're welcome to improve the article by adding that with proper citation—but surely my not including more information isn't a reason for wholesale reverting my edit, per WP:ROWN?
• Clearly the lead can't include the same granularity as the article—but it should reflect, broadly, the content of the article. It seems to me that the most salient fact of "Public opinion" about "Voter identification laws in the United States" is that they're broadly popular. That's why I included it in the lead. From everything I've read, that's been consistent for decades—neither "fluid" nor "ambiguous", at least up to this point. Certainly if that were to change, the lead would need to change—but the same is true of the number of states with voter ID laws, the argument pro and con, etc., all of which are equally "fluid". Per above, if you think that more about public opinion should be in the lead, you can feel free to add it—but removing pubic opinion entirely from the lead makes it a less representative and balanced introduction to the article.

Please do include my username so I make sure to read your replies—thanks, and look forward to your response! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checking cited studies reveals issues in "Public opinion" section.

I took the time to review two random studies cited in the "Public opinion" section, and found the significantly misrepresented both.

1. Wilson and Brewer, 2013: "Although all major political demographics support voter ID laws, a 2013 study showed significant divergence in opinion between conservative-affiliated demographics, which are staunch supporters, and liberal-affiliated demographics, which are less supportive. The study also showed that support depends on survey framing: when questions biased against voter ID laws are asked, support drops 15% compared to when questions favorable to voter ID laws are asked."

• The study didn't ask "biased questions"—it asked the same question five times: once by itself, and the other four following a brief argument designed to bias the respondent either in favor or against voter ID laws.
• None of the actual support numbers are included—leaving the reader to guess what "support", "stauch" support, and "less" support mean. For reference, the "neutrally framed" support rate was 78%—seems worth mentioning.
• Of the negative arguments, one "reduced support by eleven percentage points, relative to the control condition"—to 67%—so the "15%" in the article is obviously false. The second negative frame actually increased support by 4%—making the "questions biased" clause in the article false. Again, why not at least include the numbers?
• Neither of the positive arguments significantly affected support, which the article posits may be because the public already believes them. Seems worth mentioning, if this article is being cited for the infuence of framing.
• Most importantly—why is this article cited at all? The first part of the reference is redundant, with almost the exact same numbers as the polling: Democrats 62%, Republicans 94%. It's unclear to me what this adds to the article—especially as editors seem intent on reverting more recent, but near-identical numbers, claiming they're "cherrypicked". Moreover, all this entire citation really adds is that one type of negative framing (out of two) reduced support for a question by 11%—hardly relevant to the instant issue, since negative framing reduces support for almost any proposition. Even the actual substance of the framing portion of the article, which is completely missed here—that framing, positive or negative, doesn't significantly reduce support for voter ID laws when the frame is election security, and does so only when it's negatively framed to suggest eligible people won't be able to vote—doesn't seem all that WP:DUE.

2. Atkeson, et al., 2014. "A 2016 study found that partisan affiliation is a major determinant of support for voter ID laws and that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to be concerned about voter fraud."

• The well-known fact that Republicans are more concerned about fraud than Democrats was stated at the outset of the study. And the conclusion actually notes that "Republicans have slightly lower levels of confidence" that their personal vote will be counted.
• Without going into too much detail, what the study actually did find was that although most voters believe voter ID laws prevent fraud, many believe ensuring access to the polls is more important—and that partisanship played a significant role in that specific finding.
• This article only addressed the opinions of voters in New Mexico—omitting this implies the findings are national.
• As with the first, this article isn't cited for its actual, specific findings—so why is it cited here at all? And again, everything it is cited for is redundant and unenlightening.

If editors believe that the actual findings of the studies are significant enough to report here, the article will need to be rewritten to accurately report them—right now the first citation is rife with errors and the second is entirely redundant. My preference would be to remove both references entirely. More broadly, the fact that the first two citations I checked were error-prone and misrepresented their sources is worrisome, and I very much appreciate in advance any and all help examining the other references in the article. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead: edit to misleading statement; characterization of research; tense

I have edited the lead:

• I've removed the grossly misleading citation which stated in Wikivoice that "higher costs of voting have lower turnout"—while omitting that those costs, per the citation itself, do NOT include the subject of the article. The statement was WP:UNDUE and patently violated WP:NPOV.
• I've edited the citation to the source, keeping the fact that the research is "mixed" and also including the source's crystal-clear conclusion that research "has generally found that voter ID laws have little to no impact on voter turnout, even when looking at specific racial groups". I see no reason to state "research is mixed" but exclude the actual composition of the "mix". The lead now comports with the article itself, which states: "Studies of the effects of voter ID laws on turnout in the United States have generally found that such laws have little, if any, effect on turnout."
• I've changed the tense of the conclusion about Republican legislators pushing harder for voter ID laws from present to past, as the citation is based entirely on data from before 2016.

Thanks in advance for input, please keep WP:ROWN in mind, and look forward to discussing further! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Voter ID laws are a cost to voting per both the cited 538 article and the study that 538 cites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, since you obviously have a very different take on the sentence I removed than mine, which I've described above, a few brief questions for clarification::

• I'm a little unclear what you're advocating for here and having trouble following your logic—can you be a bit clearer? As best as I can tell, it seems you want the article to state—albeit in a roundabout way—that voter ID laws cause "lower turnout". Is that the case?
• Wikivoice stated that "Data shows that states with higher costs of voting have lower turnout", citing an article which clearly stated that "research has not conclusively linked voter ID laws to a decrease in turnout"—so if indeed you're arguing that voter ID laws are a "cost" in the sense of causing "lower turnout", you're flatly contradicted by the RS itself. Not to mention by the instant article, which states that: "Studies of the effects of voter ID laws on turnout in the United States have generally found that such laws have little, if any, effect on turnout." If you're not arguing that, would you agree with me that the lead should not state, directly or indirectly, that voter ID laws cause lower turnout?
• As for "the study", you'll have to be more specific, since the article cites a substantial amount of research—can you kindly point me to the specific study, and to what part of both that and the article state "voter ID laws are a [sic] cost to voting"—and, more importantly, what exactly that cost is?

Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Push for photo ID requirements" section

I did some work to clean up the section Voter identification laws in the United States#Push for photo ID requirements—but upon further reflection, I'm not sure I understand why it's a separate section at all. What distinguishes it from the broader Voter identification laws in the United States#History section? Is there a need to replicate all the information on Shelby v. Holder that forms the next subsection? Interested in hearing the opinion of others as to whether it makes sense to have the subsection at all—and if so, what can be done to clearly delineate what information goes in it as opposed to the main section. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Texas included as "Strict Photo ID" in table???

It seems inaccurate to show Texas as "Strict Photo ID" in the table when the notes in the table show that the law which would make Texas a Strict Photo ID state was invalidated by both District courts and the US Supreme Court.

Factually, there is a state law in Texas which would make the state Strict photo ID if it were valid. Factually, this law was invalidated (per notes) by federal courts.

By current laws in force, Texas is a no photo id state.

Please advise as curators of the article before I make the edit. Gregorkhan (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The current notes in the table list a bunch of back-and-forth changes with sources for each change. The source Tesfaye, Sophia (February 27, 2017) seems to be the most recent, and was discussing US Department of Justice changes that had been announced, but at the time the story was written, no formal court result had occurred. It would be good to get a more recent secondary source that gives the current state of affairs, especially since we have a different president now. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more recent citations....

• [4] "Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday signed into law Senate Bill 1, sweeping legislation that further tightens state election laws and constrains local control of elections by limiting counties’ ability to expand voting options."

• [5] Changes to the Texas election process in SB 1 include (1) A ban on drive-thru voting (2) New regulations for early voting hours, including a ban on 24-hour voting (3) A ban on the distribution of mail-in ballot applications (4) New ID requirements for voting by mail (5) A correction process for mail-in voting (6) Enhancing poll watcher protections (7) Establishing monthly citizenship checks (8) Creating new rules for voter assistance

• [6] "The State of Texas's history of official voting-related discrimination against its disfavored citizens is longstanding and well-documented," the Justice Deparment's complaint said. The complaint cited recent court decisions that have found "Texas's redistricting plans and voter identification requirements to discriminate against minority voters."

• [7] "On September 3, the Brennan Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenging S.B. 1 under the U.S. Constitution and other federal law..."

• [8] "Texas is the state with the most restrictive voting processes, followed by Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee. Texas maintains an in-person voter registration deadline 30 days prior to Election Day, has reduced the number of polling stations in some parts of the state by more than 50 percent and has the most restrictive pre-registration law in the country, according to the analysis." DN (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Map of Voter ID laws as of 2020 via MIT.edu

[9] DN (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition to history section (Penn)

See WaPo and CBS in 2012.

Also, from POLITICO June 2012...

• "Pennsylvania state House Republican leader Mike Turzai said that the state’s new voter ID law will “allow” Mitt Romney to win the state in November, according to a report. Turzai’s spokesperson Stephen Miskin, however, said the comment emphasized the problem of voter fraud in the state. “Rep. Turzai was speaking at a partisan, political event. He was simply referencing, for the first time in a long while, the Republican Presidential candidate will be on a more even keel thanks to Voter ID…Anyone looking further into it has their own agenda,”

The above is almost verbatim so it would need to be shortened and rewritten before being added. The current context (below) reads...

• "Pennsylvania's voter ID law allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). A judicial order on October 2, 2012, blocked enforcement of Pennsylvania's law until after the 2012 Presidential election. Following a trial in the summer of 2013 and a six-month delay, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law on January 17, 2014, as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters.
• He noted that required alternative voter IDs were available only through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs have limited hours: in nine counties they are open only one day per week, and in 13 counties they are open only two days per week. The court ruled that the Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to provide IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID". Photo IDs are not required to vote in PA."

This addition (top) would give readers more context as to why Penn. is listed in this section and who the proponents were in that state. Are there any objections to adding this context to the paragraph regarding Penn. and cleaning it up as not to add UNDUE weight, or are there some better suggestions? Cheers. DN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Registration and election day voter ID laws by state" table

The "Registration and election day voter ID laws by state" table is not clear in representing Registration versus Election Day voter ID laws. This is especially concerning where there are differences within an individual state. For example, Mississippi does not require a photo ID for registration, but specifies photo ID for voting purposes. https://www.sos.ms.gov/content/documents/elections/Mail-in%20Voter%20Registration%20Application.pdfDoes it make sense to alter the table format or some other way to clearly differentiate voter ID laws for each purpose? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if it makes sense to do this data management at all on Wikipedia and whether we should point to reliable websites were that information is updated more precisely? Superb Owl (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

SAVE Act and REAL ID

In an edit today Superb Owl (talk · contribs) edited the first paragraph in the "SAVE Act" section to say "The ID would have to meet the guidelines for getting a Real ID." This is not true. The act would actually require REAL ID that indicates that the holder is a US citizen. But REAL ID does not indicate citizenship, only legal presence.

There is a driver license or ID card offered by a few states that does indicate US citizenship; see Enhanced driver's license. This is usually accepted for the same purposes as REAL ID, but I can't find a law or regulation that says it IS REAL ID. But the vast majority of REAL IDs in circulation could not be used to register to vote if the SAVE Act passes in its present form. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The documentation to get a REAL ID is the same that is required to register to vote is what was intended to be communicated Superb Owl (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I quote from the bill:

“(1) A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States. [Emphasis added]]

Look at any decent article about Real ID, or just look at somebody's Real ID. There is no indication of citizenship, except on enhanced driver licenses and enhanced ID cards. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I found a source, which is already in the section

• Evans, Nick (2024-07-12). "U.S. House Speaker cites unproven Ohio evidence in support of new proof-of-citizenship voting bill • Ohio Capital Journal". Ohio Capital Journal. Retrieved 2024-09-11.

A quote from the Evans article:

Under the SAVE Act, voters would need to establish they are who they claim to be and that they’re a citizen of the country. That might seem simple, but it gets complicated quickly.

A driver’s license alone doesn’t work, unless it indicates citizenship. A handful of states offer that feature, including for instance, some along the border with Canada. But many states like Ohio do not.

Jc3s5h (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to clear that up Superb Owl (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This article requires proficiency in writing citations

Because of the large number of citations and complexity of how they are used, editing this article requires proficiency in writing citations. For example, at 13:09, 19 September 2024 UTC JSwift49 (talk · contribs) made this edit which contained these errors:

• <ref name=":24"> -- incorrect because the name :24 already exist in the article used with an article by Cantoni & Pons, and the name is unnecessary because the citation is only used once.
• title=Analysis: What the data actually shows about whether undocumented immigrants vote in US elections {{!}} CNN Politics -- software that assists in creating citations often contain this error, the title of the article is run together with the name of the website. But the the citation is already taken care of the website title with "|website=CNN". The editor should have deleted "{{!}} CNN Politics". By the way, {{!}} is a magic word meaning a vertical bar, because an actual vertical bar would play havoc with the citation.

My main hint in dealing with articles that have lots of citations is give up on the crappy visual editor and use the source editor.

Because the edit damaged citations that use the name ":24" correctly I will delete the edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah missed that sorry. FWIW, I'm not a fan of numbering citations; I use https://citer.toolforge.org/, which generates a unique alphanumeric name for each citation. JSwift49 14:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of numbering citations either, I usually use a name of an author run together with the year. I usually use Zotero, but nothing is reliable. I always go over the citation manually before saving the edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Existing processes to prevent noncitizen voting

If we have to choose one main article, it is not clear which one we should choose and we should discuss it before deciding. I also think the chart should stay regardless on both articles as it is instructive as to the ways that citizenship is verified currently. Superb Owl (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think proof of citizenship laws should mainly be discussed here, since it's a similar thing to voter ID (providing identification to vote), and most of the discussion is about the arguments/court cases, instead of the extent to which they prevent fraud. So Electoral fraud in the United States#Prevention seems like the wrong place to discuss in detail. JSwift49 13:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry misunderstood; existing processes should be on Electoral fraud in the United States#Prevention because unlike proof of citizenship it's not an ID law, it's internal control processes states have. Chart is how one state does things and so it's not appropriate for a summary section in my opinion but good for a main article section. JSwift49 13:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)