​​​

The right to vote, one of the fundamental rights, has long been secured by citizens and protected from

interference by Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. But what if citizenship was no longer sufficient to secure the right to vote? What if your ability to exercise the franchise–that is, making your voice heard through democratic processes–turned on as something as trivial as whether you had the right paperwork? For millions of Americans, this is no longer a hypothetical scenario. Instead, this is their new reality, in which their right to vote is curtailed by restrictive Voter Identification (ID) laws.

Barriers to voting go back to the founding of the United States of America. Neither the Constitution of 1787 nor

the Bill of Rights provided universal voting rights. In the beginning, the United States left voting qualifications to the states, which often restricted the franchise to white, male landowners. Even after the 15th Amendment barred race-based restrictions on voting rights, the violence and discrimination of Reconstruction and Jim Crow severely limited voting rights in America. 

Over time, Americans worked to expand access to voting through activism, amendments to the U.S. Constitution,

and federal voting rights laws. The Suffrage Movement led to the passage of the 19th Amendment, which extended the franchise to women. And while the 15th Amendment nominally secured the franchise for black voters, it took the Civil Rights Movement, culminating in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to meaningfully protect the rights of black voters to participate in elections [1]. 

​

 Carnegie Corporation of New York, Voting Rights: A Short History, Corporation of New York, November 18, 2019, https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/voting-rights-timeline

 

Still, the hard-fought gains secured by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were met with opposition. In 2013, the

United States Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before Shelby, jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression were strictly limited in their ability to enact new laws restricting the right to vote. To enact such restrictions, these jurisdictions were required to obtain preclearance from the federal government, a particularly difficult process to secure. In Shelby, the Court held that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions had to get preclearance before changing their voting laws was outdated and unconstitutional [2]. The majority opinion held that the formula was based on conditions from the 1960s and 1970s, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, that no longer existed. 

With the federal preclearance requirement eliminated, jurisdictions were able to enact more restrictive voting

requirements–and that is exactly what many states did. By 2018, twenty-three (23) states enacted new laws placing significant new restrictions on the right to vote. For example, North Carolina, “signed a voter identification law seen by many as an attempt to suppress the votes of people of color” [3].

The restrictions on voting rights in the wake of Shelby led to a push back. States and public interest groups filed

lawsuits challenging the new restrictive voting laws. At the same time, public interest groups initiated public awareness campaigns to help voters comply with the new restrictions on voting rights. In Wisconsin, the State Infrastructure Fund brought together a coalition of public interest litigation groups to combat restrictions seen as intended to suppress voting by certain racial minorities and ethnic communities. A group of twelve organizations, led by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), worked to challenge Voter ID restrictions and racial gerrymandering–the process of drawing electoral district boundaries in a way that intentionally discriminates against the voting power of a minority.

​

[1] Hansi Lo Wang, Where We’ve Been: The Epic Struggle to Vote & Be Counted, Defend Your Voting Rights, January 30, 2024, www.defendyourvotingrights.org/timeline-voting-rights/.

[2] Rock The Vote, Shelby v Holder, Rock the Vote, June 24, 2022, www.rockthevote.org/explainers/shelby-v-holder

[3] Hansi Lo Wang, Where We’ve Been: The Epic Struggle to Vote & Be Counted, Defend Your Voting Rights, January 30, 2024, www.defendyourvotingrights.org/timeline-voting-rights

 

The Legal Landscape of Voter ID Laws 

 Voter ID laws have been a subject of debate since 1950, when South Carolina became the first state to require a

form of identification at the polls. They were designed to verify eligibility and protect election integrity, yet they have become a focal point in the debate over voter access and disenfranchisement.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby v. Holder, which was the most significant ruling on

voting rights in a long time. In Shelby, the plaintiffs sought to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain jurisdictions with histories of voter discrimination to seek preclearance from the United States Department of Justice before enacting any laws that would impact voting practices. In practice, these jurisdictions could not change their voting laws unless they submitted to the DOJ sufficient “proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group”. Without such proof, the proposed changes had a presumption that they were “legally unenforceable” [4].

The plaintiffs in Shelby argued that the data determining whether a jurisdiction had a history of racial

discrimination was outdated and no longer applicable, and therefore applying the preclearance requirement to voting laws enacted in these jurisdictions was itself unconstitutional. In a controversial 5-4 vote, the Court struck down key provisions of the preclearance requirement. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the formula was outdated and unconstitutional. This ruling had the almost immediate effect of weakening federal oversight of state voting regulations. With the preclearance requirement no longer restricting new voting laws, states with histories of voter suppression had much more latitude in changing election laws without federal approval.

Shelby has sparked widespread debate over how it will impact voter turnout. Critics of Shelby argue that claims

of voter fraud are a pretext to impose restrictions that will prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to vote. One such critic–the Brennan Center for Justice–has argued that the restrictive voting laws enabled by Shelby have a particular purpose: to suppress voting by racial and ethnic minorities [5]. Similarly, high-profile attorneys, including US Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have compared Voter ID laws to poll taxes and described them as “purposely discriminatory” [6]. The Voting Rights Institute has criticized restrictive voting laws enacted in the wake of Shelby as unnecessary and expensive.

Defenders of Shelby claim to be motivated by concerns of voter fraud, believing that the limitations are

reasonable and proportional. Kansas’ Secretary of State has defended Voter ID requirements, arguing that if you are required to present ID to operate a motor vehicle and avail of other basic privileges, it is not an imposition to condition voting on certain ID requirements. Other advocates believe voter ID laws do not tamper with participation because they do not prevent legitimate voters from making it to the polls [7]. For Americans who have identification, these laws are not a problem. But for those who do not have easy access to identification, possibly due to missing documentation or financial burdens, these laws do present barriers.

[4] U.S. Department of Justice, About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Division Department of Justice, August 6, 2015, www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act

[5] Zoltan Hajnal et al, Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes, The Journal of Politics, 79, 2, 363–379 (2017).

[6] Rich Lowry, The Poll Tax That Wasn’t. POLITICO Magazine, October 22, 2014, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-poll-tax-that-wasnt-112123

[7] Id. 

 

Case Studies: The Impact of Voter ID Laws

While voter ID laws are often framed as measures to safeguard election integrity, their impact varies significantly

across states, sparking debates over voter suppression and access to the ballot. Examining recent cases in Georgia, Texas, and Wisconsin reveals how these laws have influenced voter turnout and legal challenges.

In 2011, Texas passed SB 14, one of the nation's strictest Voter ID laws. This bill required individuals to present

an acceptable form of ID prior to voting. Proponents of SB 14 argued that it was essential to prevent voter fraud and to ensure integrity in elections. On the other side, critics claimed SB 14 targeted minority groups, elderly individuals, and low-income voters.

In October of 2014, a judge struck down SB 14, equating it to a poll tax, which deliberately goes after people of

color. This decision directly followed the Supreme Court's decision to block a similar bill in Wisconsin. U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos wrote in her decision that the law "creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” She also added that the law “constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax" [8].

In 2021, Georgia’s Republican-controlled legislature passed SB 202, otherwise known as the “Election Integrity

Act of 2021.” This bill was drafted in response to two Democratic senators winning Georgia’s Senate runoff in an election that saw high voter turnout, particularly amongst minority populations.

SB 202 shortened the period of time one could request an absentee ballot and required voters to hand-sign the

absentee ballot, meaning voters needed access to a printer. While drop boxes remained legal, they also limited how many could be used by each county, as well as when they would be accessible.

But the barriers did not end there. The bill also shortened the Senate runoff period, which is a second election

that occurs when neither nominee reaches the minimum threshold of votes needed to win. At one point, Saturday voting was nearly eliminated during the runoff after state election officials interpreted state law to prohibit voting the day after a holiday, specifically, Thanksgiving and the following Friday.

Still, many argued that these changes would not impact voter turnout. Gabriel Sterling, a staffer in Georgia’s

Secretary of State’s Office, claimed the real burden lay in audits and the countless hours devoted to recruiting poll staff, which were issues solved by SB 202 [9]. Others felt these disturbances were minor, and the real issues lay elsewhere. Bishop Reginald Jackson, the leader of the African Methodist Episcopal churches in Georgia, claimed that believing SB 202 did not have negative effects on voters is “conscientious stupidity.” Andrea Young, director of ACLU Georgia, feels Ralph Warnock–the Democratic nominee in Georgia's first election–might have been ahead enough to avoid a runoff had there not been additional restrictions.

​

[8] CBS News, Voter ID Laws in Texas, Wisconsin Blocked by the Courts, CBS News, October 10, 2014, www.cbsnews.com/news/voter-id-laws-in-texas-wisconsin-blocked-by-the-courts 

[9] Alexander Ayanna, and Gary Fields. “Effect of Georgia’s Voting Law Unclear, despite High Turnout.” AP News, 10 Dec. 2022, apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-georgia-state-government-89b374bfafdba5b673a46b240a5e3e1f

​

The Future of Voting Rights in America 

The future of voting rights in America remains a contentious issue, as the balance between federal oversight and

state control continues to shape election laws and accessibility. In cases such as SB 14 in Texas and SB 202 in Georgia, it has been made clear how the state and federal government both play a critical role in upholding constitutional values when it comes to voting laws. With ongoing debates over voter ID laws, election security, and disenfranchisement, policymakers and advocates are considering potential reforms to safeguard voting rights and ensure fair electoral processes nationwide.

As of March 2023, 35 states had a voter ID law in place. These laws are categorized into either “strict laws,” where

voters who do not possess acceptable IDs must vote on a provisional ballot and follow up with their vote after Election Day for their vote to be counted or “non-strict laws,” which only allow a fraction of voters without acceptable IDs to cast a ballot on election day without further action [10]. Of those 35, 12 are deemed strict.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 11% of eligible voters do not hold the kind of ID needed to vote.

Many individuals have not made the necessary steps in obtaining an ID “because the necessary documentation, such as a birth certificate, is often difficult or expensive to acquire” [11].

Many states had voting rights on their ballots in April. Wisconsin, in particular, will be adding a voter ID

requirement to its constitution after its referendum passed. Wisconsin Republicans argue this amendment to the state constitution will uphold election integrity, while Democrats are fearful of what this means for minority and student voters. Wisconsin is currently 1 of 9 states to require a photo ID present to vote [12]. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, its requirement is the strictest in the country.​

​

[10] Liz Larsen, Voter ID Laws: What Do We Know So Far?, Berkeley Public Policy The Goldman School, March 19, 2023, gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/policy-initiatives/democracy-policy-initiative/democracy-policy-field/policy-briefs/voter-id-laws-what-do-we-know-so-far? 

[11] Keesha Gaskins and Sundeep Iya, The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification, Brennan Center for Justice, July 18, 2012

​[12] Julie Bosman, Wisconsin Voters Approve Amendment Requiring Photo ID to Vote, The New York Times, April 1, 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/04/01/us/wisconsin-voters-approve-amendment-requiring-photo-id-to-vote.html

 

Conclusion

The debate surrounding voter ID laws has become one of the most contentious issues in American democracy.

While proponents argue that such laws protect election integrity by preventing voter fraud, studies and legal challenges show that these laws disproportionately affect marginalized communities, including racial minorities, the elderly, and low-income individuals. The impact of voter ID laws is not just a matter of inconvenience but of disenfranchisement, as millions of eligible voters face unnecessary barriers to casting their ballots. As seen in states like Georgia and Texas, where voter ID laws and other restrictive measures have been enacted, these laws create significant hurdles that undermine the foundational principle of equal access to the ballot box.

To address these challenges, there are several steps that voters, policymakers, and the courts must take. Voters

must remain vigilant and actively engage in the democratic process by advocating for their rights, participating in legal challenges, and holding lawmakers accountable. Policymakers should work toward reforming voter ID laws to ensure that they do not unnecessarily restrict access to voting while maintaining the security of elections. The courts must continue to uphold the rights of voters, ensuring that any voting law changes comply with constitutional protections, particularly for vulnerable populations. Above all, continued advocacy and legal challenges are essential to safeguarding the integrity of our democracy and ensuring that every eligible voter has a fair and equal opportunity to vote.

In the end, protecting voting rights is not just about ensuring fair elections, but about preserving principles of

equality.