The Republicans’ yearslong push to toughen requirements to vote and restrict how ballots are counted continues, as does the debate that rages around them.
Dozens of states already have voter ID laws and limit how ballots can be cast and how long after Election Day they can be counted, if at all. But the research on what impact this has is largely inconclusive and at times contradictory.
Yet while many studies found that voter ID laws have little to no impact on voter turnout, others suggest a disproportionately negative impact on voters of color and other minority groups, according to a 2023 paper from the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.
Those are voters who historically have leaned toward Democratic candidates.
President Donald Trump raised the stakes with an executive order in late March requiring documents showing proof of citizenship be presented when ing to vote and prohibiting counting ballots received after Election Day even if they were postmarked by that date.
A federal judge on Thursday blocked some parts of the order, including proof of citizenship, ruling that the Constitution gives Congress and the states the authority to regulate federal elections. But the judge at least temporarily allowed the Department of Justice to take action against states that do not adopt the requirement that mail-in ballots be received by Election Day.
U.S. citizenship is required nationwide to vote in state and federal elections, though people typically only have to attest to that status, but under penalty of perjury. Documented proof of citizenship is more than most states’ voter ID laws now require.
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, has proposed legislation that also would require citizenship verification and a photo ID to vote in person, while restricting ballot counting to 72 hours after Election Day. A Democratic-controlled legislative committee recently rejected one of his bills, though DeMaio said he plans to pursue a measure for the 2026 statewide ballot.
A federal lawsuit from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Bonsall, aims to stop California from counting ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive afterward. The League of Women Voters of California last week petitioned the court to intervene in opposition.
Regardless of one’s position on the lawsuit, filed by Judicial Watch on Issa’s behalf, there’s a refreshing truthfulness about it. The process gives “electoral advantage for opponents of Republican congressional incumbents,” according to the litigation.
Efforts to shape election laws — by both Republicans and Democrats — often have a partisan goal. Democrats pushed changes to allow “ballot harvesting,” where people can collect mail ballots of others and deliver them to polling places or election officials. Democrats benefited from this greatly, at least until Republicans, who initially cried foul after being blindsided by the tactic, started doing it.
The Issa lawsuit contends the practice of post-Election Day ballot counting is illegal (and “unfair”), which most courts weighing in on similar cases around the country have rejected.
The suit mentions congressional elections where Democratic candidates overtook the lead as late ballots were tallied. On rarer occasions, the script has flipped, with the late count putting Republicans over the top, according to Alex Riggins of The San Diego Union-Tribune.
The League of Women Voters, among others, contends the lawsuit seeks to disenfranchise legitimate voters who have cast ballots by Election Day for partisan reasons.
But at least the suit doesn’t rely on the myths of widespread voter fraud or that massive numbers of undocumented immigrants are casting ballots.
Those ruses have spurred restrictive voting laws across the country, despite the failure over the years of anybody finding fraud happening beyond small and rare instances — and certainly not at the scale of deciding major elections.
It’s a felony in California to falsely declare citizenship to . Often lost in the debate is how few undocumented immigrants would risk jail or deportation to do that.
Dozens of court cases, reviews, recounts and investigations — even one authorized by Trump — have found no evidence that his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election was the result of fraud.
This gets old but bears repeating, as Trump continues to make the claim to this day. In doing so, he has successfully cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral process.
This is not to say assuring the validity of elections isn’t important and efforts to look for improvements shouldn’t be a constant priority. A silver lining to Trump’s accusations has been elections are more scrutinized, more secure and more accurate perhaps than ever before.
None of that has changed Trump’s tune. His executive order claims the United States “fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections.”
At the committee hearing where his bill was rejected, DeMaio said “(w)e have the lowest level of public trust and confidence in our elections that we have ever seen,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
He noted polling has shown that view crosses partisan lines. A Gallup poll in October showed 84% of those surveyed favor requiring photo identification to vote and 83% ed providing proof of citizenship when ing to vote for the first time. About two-thirds of Democrats agreed, but Republican is nearly 20% higher.
So, who benefits from these laws and who doesn’t?
A study on the partisan impact was published in 2023 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
“We conclude that voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize ers of both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results,” researchers said in their summary.
The Berkeley paper said “multiple studies have shown that voters of color are much more likely to not possess the appropriate ID to vote in states with strict voter ID laws.” For example, 13% of Black citizens of voting age lack authorized IDs, compared with only 5% of White citizens of voting age.
Further, one study cited by Berkeley found that the adoption of voter ID requirements increases the time it takes to check in at “majority nonwhite” polling places, while it actually speeds up the check-in process at “majority white” polling places.
The election in Wisconsin four weeks ago further scrambled the debate. Judge Susan Crawford, ed by Democrats, was easily elected to the state Supreme Court despite $25 million spent against her by Trump ally Elon Musk.
At the same time, Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly voted to enshrine their voter ID law, approved in 2011, into the state constitution.
What they said
David French (@DavidAFrench), New York Times columnist.
“Note how many of the injunctions against Trump are by Trump-appointed judges. This isn’t a judicial coup. It’s what it looks like when judges do their jobs.”
