What could tighter voter ID laws mean in November?
A study by the Associated Press found that legitimate votes have been rejected after many states passed tougher voter ID laws in order to prevent fraud.
M. Spencer Green/AP
When Edward and Mary Weidenbener went to vote in Indiana's primary in May, they didn't realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver's license or passport.
The husband and wife, both approaching 90 years old, had to use a temporary ballot that would be verified later, even though they knew the people working the polling site that day. Unaware that Indiana law obligated them to follow up with the county election board, the Weidenbeners ultimately had their votes rejected â€” news to them until informed recently by an Associated Press reporter.
Edward Weidenbener, a World War II veteran who had voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential contest, said he was surprised by the rules and the consequences.
"A lot of people don't have a photoÂ ID. They'll be automatically disenfranchised," he said.
As more states put in place strictÂ voterÂ IDÂ rules, an AP review of temporary ballots from Indiana and Georgia, which first adopted the most stringent standards, found that more than 1,200 such votes were tossed during the 2008 general election.
During sparsely attended primaries this year in Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee, the states implementing the toughest laws, hundreds more ballots were blocked.
The numbers suggest that the legitimate votes rejected by the laws are far more numerous than are the cases of fraud that advocates of the rules say they are trying to prevent. Thousands more votes could be in jeopardy for this November, when more states with larger populations are looking to have similar rules in place.
More than two dozen states have some form ofÂ IDÂ requirement, and 11 of those passed new rules over the past two years largely at the urging of Republicans who say they want to prevent fraud.
Democrats and voting rights groups fear thatÂ IDÂ laws could suppress votes among people who may not typically have a driver's license, and disproportionately affect the elderly, poor and minorities. While the number of votes is a small percentage of the overall total, they have the potential to sway a close election. Remember that the 2000 presidential race was decided by a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but fraud appears to be rare. As part of its effort to build support forÂ voterÂ IDÂ laws, the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified some 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country. That's not even one per state per year.
IDÂ laws would not have prevented many of those cases because they involved vote-buying schemes in local elections or people who falsifiedÂ voterÂ registrations.
Election administrators and academics who monitor the issue said in-person fraud is rare because someone would have to impersonate a registeredÂ voterÂ and risk arrest. A 2008 Supreme Court case drew detailed briefs from the federal government, 10 states and other groups that identified only nine potential impersonation cases over the span of several years, according to a tally by the Brennan Center at New York University.
Michael Thielen, executive director of the Republican lawyers group, said its survey was not comprehensive and he believes vote fraud is a serious problem.
"Most of it goes unreported and unprosecuted," he said.
Several election administrators, even those who supportÂ IDÂ laws as a barrier to potential fraud, said the rejected ballots in their counties appeared to be legitimateÂ votersÂ who simply did not fulfill theirÂ IDÂ obligations.
Donna Sharp, the administrator of elections in Hawkins County, Tenn., said she saw no signs of fraud. Of the seven people who cast absentee ballots, six didn't come in to confirm their identity. Sharp knew one of them personally.
But Sharp said she supports theÂ IDÂ law despite initial concerns. She said most people were aware of the requirement and able to provide their identification, and she thought the rules provided an extra layer of security.
"We want to protect thoseÂ votersÂ who do need their vote to count â€” the people who are doing things in an honest manner," Sharp said.
Some administrators speculated thatÂ votersÂ who didn't return to verify their identity may have deduced that the ballot wouldn't alter the outcome of the election.
Indiana, Georgia and Tennessee require thatÂ votersÂ provide a photoÂ IDÂ at the polls. Failing that,Â votersÂ can use a temporary ballot that can be verified later, when they must meet with local elections administrators to sort out the matter.
Pennsylvania is putting a similar law in place for the November election. Kansas has comparable rules. Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin are moving in that direction of having rules set for this year if they survive court challenges and federal approval.
Virginia had a rule allowingÂ votersÂ without properÂ IDÂ to sign an identity statement; a false claim could make them subject to felony punishment. Under a new law awaiting final approval from the Justice Department,Â votersÂ who do not bring properÂ ID, which doesn't necessarily have to have a photo, must use a temporary ballot and later provideÂ IDÂ to the local election board.
Georgia had 873 rejected temporary ballots due toÂ IDÂ from the 2008 general election while only about 300Â IDÂ temporary ballots were counted. The state also had 64 ID-related temporary ballots tossed in the presidential primary this year.
Indiana counties that maintained information from the 2008 election reported having hundreds of ballots tossed, and more than 100 more were rejected in the primary this year. The numbers can vary greatly depending on the election: Tippecanoe County, for example, had no ID-related temporary ballots excluded in the primary vote this year compared with 47 in the 2008 general election.
Tennessee had 154 blocked ballots in its March primary.
Keesha Gaskins, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center who has opposedÂ voterÂ IDÂ laws, said she believes the numbers are significant and also underestimate the impact ofÂ voterÂ IDÂ laws. She said those numbers don't take into account people who were discouraged from showing up to vote in the first place or who may be turned away by poll workers. EvenÂ votersÂ in states with less-strictÂ IDÂ laws may not get the proper explanation about how the process works withoutÂ ID.
Beyond that, Gaskin said, rejecting even hundreds of ballots in an election is significant.
"These are still people who attempted to vote and who were unable to do so," Gaskins said. "When you compare that to the actual evidence of fraud, the difference is exponential."