Despite having been unsuccessful in her pursuit of the presidency, it would appear that certain discussions across social media platforms are questioning the authenticity of Kamala Harris’s claimed victories against Donald Trump. One viral sentiment suggested that she only managed to secure the states that did not enforce stringent voter identification procedures. This theory continues to echo throughout the virtual expanse, reaffirming the notion that Harris didn’t claim any territory that required thorough voter identity verification.
However, attempting to consolidate voter ID requirements into a flattened narrative oversimplifies the nuances of the debate. These shallower interpretations do a disservice to the matter, ignoring the framework of state and federal laws established to authenticate voters’ identity before their votes are cast, whether in person or via postal voting.
To assess the situation with some granularity, it is important to note that 36 states, as outlined by the National Conference of State Legislatures, mandate some form of identification at the polling stations. The residual 14 states, along with Washington, D.C., do not require physical proof of identity, instead opting for alternative methods of voter verification.
Tackling mailed ballots, federal law dictates that first-time voters must produce some sort of identification. Some states extend this requirement, placing additional specifications for ballot submissions via post. The underlying processes of the 36 states necessitating in-person voting identification vary significantly.
A subset of ten of these states enforces stringent photographic identification prerequisites. Voters with no accepted photo IDs are eligible to resort to a provisional vote. However, they must go to lengths to confirm identity after Election Day to get their votes in the count. Three of such states authorize other classes of ID.
Moving down the list, the stratum of 23 states allows votes via regular ballots without additional follow-up actions post Election Day for residents without accepted IDs. Transitioning to compare the territories won by Harris and Trump in relation with their voter identification regulations, it becomes evident that the characterization is not as monothrust as social media suggests.
Indeed, it becomes evident that a number of the states won by Harris do not necessitate voting documents while others do. For example, Washington state, which dropped in Harris’s favor, requests identification but primarily conducts elections via mail. This condition thus has minimal bearings on most voters.
In instances where voters lack an ID, they are required to cast a provisional vote and the election officials then match the provided signatures with official records. The National Conference of State Legislatures categorizes states into five distinct groups based on their voter ID laws.
These categories include stringent photo ID requirements, stringent non-photo ID requirements, requests for photo ID, identification requests sans photo ID, and those where no document is needed to cast a vote. For about two decades, efforts have been underway to tighten identification requirements, which accelerated post the 2020 election.
The surge followed false allegations of voter fraud, which prompted lawmakers sympathetic to these claims to promote more rigorous voter ID requisites in the hopes of mitigating perceived fraudulent activities. These states with tighter laws predictably swayed towards the Republican candidate in the elections, even while national experts insist that such fraud is predominantly sporadic and uncommon.
Contrary to the popular belief, it is erroneous to associate states enforcing voter ID policies solely with Trump and those without to Harris. Trump managed to secure victories in the nine states with rigorous photo ID regulations and three states with stringent non-photo ID laws.
Further proving this, Trump also triumphed in 11 states where photo IDs were requested, whereas Harris managed to only secure one such state. Evenly, they split the pie with six states each where some form of identification was requested. Interestingly, Trump won in two states where no document was needed to vote; a stark contrast to Harris who won in 12 such states.
These classifications, however, still remain a proxy for the landscape of diverse voter ID requirements and verification processes. These include identity verification during voter registration particularly in states where residents auto-receive a mail ballot. Credits to such nuances, the generalization that is rampant on social media grossly simplifies Harris’s victory and its relation to the voter identification laws.