Content area
Full Text
"Voting in America: The Potential for Voter ID Laws, Proof-of-Citizenship Laws, and Lack of Multi-Lingual Support To Interfere with Free and Fair Access to the Ballot."
Testimony by Matt Barreto, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles
U.S. House of Representatives Documents
Over 40 states have considered voter identification laws in recent years, with several adopting laws requiring voters to show a valid ID before they cast a ballot. I have researched this topic for more than 15 years and have provided expert reports and expert testimony in seven different state and federal cases. In addition, I have examined national trends on access to voter identification and underlying documents in my role as Principal Investigator of the Collaborative Multi-Racial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) and Board of Directors of the American National Election Study (ANES). I have published numerous peer-reviewed scholarly articles and book chapters on the topic of voter identification laws.
In this report n1, I summarize that such laws have a disenfranchising affect on racial and ethnic minorities, who are less likely than Whites to possess a valid ID. My research relies upon a unique national dataset to offer a comprehensive portrait of who does and does not have access to a valid piece of voter identification. In short, I find clear evidence that people of color are less likely to have an ID. Moreover, these disparities persist after controlling for a host of relevant covariates, suggesting there is indeed a lasting "race effect" net of socioeconomic status.
Background
Early challenges to voter identification laws equated them with poll taxes, given it costs money to obtain identification through the department of motor vehicles (Shanton 2010 n2). Presented with disproportionately negative implications for Blacks and Latinos, federal judges stayed laws in Georgia, Texas and South Carolina via Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the risk of fraud outweighed bur- dens to voters. The decision in Crawford v. Marion County (2008), together with the invalidation of Section 5 pre-clearance under Shelby County v. Holder (2013), rendered Section 2 of the VRA the principle means to federally challenge ID laws. State constitutional challenges have been inconsistent, leading to a
Barreto Testimony, Protecting an Equal Right to Vote, May 24, 2021...
