Vice President Kamala Harris captured 19 states in the 2024 presidential election, with a significant number of these states implementing lenient voter ID regulations. A review by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) suggests a correlation between lenient voter ID requirements and the states won by Harris. This observation raises discussions on the impact of voter ID laws on election outcomes.
According to the Daily Caller, the predominance of states without stringent ID requirements among those won by Harris spotlights ongoing national debates over voter ID laws.
The NCSL review, conducted in April 2024, scrutinized voter identification laws across the United States. Their findings indicated that while 36 states enforce some form of ID requirement to vote, not all insist on a photo ID. This detail provides a broad spectrum of how voter identification is managed state by state.
Among the states won by Harris, 18 do not mandate a photo ID at the polls. These states include notable examples like California, Oregon, and New York, none of which ask for any form of documentation for voting.
In contrast, states like Colorado and Washington, also won by Harris, do require identification but do not specify the need for a photo, largely because their elections are primarily conducted by mail.
Five additional states that Harris won—Colorado, Washington, Delaware, Connecticut, and Virginia—feature ID requirements that are not as strict as photo ID. In those states, voters have the option to use different forms of non-photo ID to fulfill the requirements, addressing the needs of in-person voters particularly.
The election laws in Delaware, Connecticut, and Virginia allow voters who cannot produce ID to sign an affidavit, which then permits them to cast a regular ballot instead of a provisional one. This system contrasts with stricter ID law states, aiming to make voting more accessible to all citizens without sacrificing the security and integrity of the electoral process.
In states with slightly more lenient ID laws, such as Rhode Island, voters who are unable to provide ID at the voting booth may cast a provisional ballot. These ballots are subsequently verified through signature matching before they are deemed valid. Similarly, New Hampshire employs a "challenged voter affidavit" allowing voters without ID to vote, followed up by a process designed to verify voter identity post-election and prevent fraud.
This nuanced approach to voter identification across Harris-won states underscores the varying levels in which states strive to balance accessibility with security. The examples of Colorado and Washington, which conduct all elections by mail, show that states adapt their voter ID policies based on the mode of voting, as mail-in voting presents different challenges and opportunities for verifying voter identities than in-person voting does.
Interestingly, Nevada and Pennsylvania, which also do not require voter ID, were not included in the list of states won by Harris in this election cycle. Pennsylvania had earlier attempted to enforce a strict voter ID law in 2012, but it was struck down by the state’s supreme court, reflecting the contentious nature of strict voter ID policies.
Moreover, Donald Trump, Harris's main competitor, secured victories in states like Iowa and Utah, where ID is requested but not mandatory. These states showcase a different approach to voter ID laws, possibly influencing differing electoral outcomes compared to those states won by Harris.
During the 2024 elections, Nevada voters addressed their ID policies by passing Question 7, which now mandates photo ID for voting. This marks a significant shift towards stricter voter ID requirements in a state that historically did not mandate them.
The correlation between Vice President Kamala Harris’s success in states with lenient voter ID laws, as identified by the NCSL, highlights significant aspects of how voter ID laws might influence electoral outcomes.
Each state's approach to voter identification—whether lenient or strict—plays a role in shaping the accessibility and integrity of the voting process. As the U.S. continues to navigate the complex landscape of voter ID laws, these factors remain pivotal in discussions on ensuring both broad voter participation and election security.