Guess what, older voters that grew up in the Jim Crow South, a little more than 50 years ago, cannot produce birth certificates.  By design by the GOP?

The Impact of Voter ID Laws on Older Black Voters in the United States

1. Introduction

This essay discusses voter ID laws and what they reveal about voting rights in the United States. It focuses particularly on how the laws disproportionately impact older Black voters by specifically considering the voting experiences of older African Americans. It sets out this impact primarily in terms of the intersection between age and race, again refuting the common assertion that voter ID laws do not present a burden to older voters. The essay begins by outlining a competing view of voter ID laws as fraud prevention measures, which combine to inhibit access to the vote. This then leads us to consider older voters and, more specifically, African American voters who reach the age of 65 and are seen as distinct from both younger and older African American voters. The essay argues that the political economy of the maldistribution of resources through history thus feeds disparities by race among older Americans. It ends by considering the unique experiences of older Black voters and the consequences of gender differences among the same group. 1. Introduction This essay analyzes voter identification laws, the laws’ purportedly differential treatment of older Black voters, and the burdens local election laws impose on older people and African Americans in the United States confronting the requirements of these laws. For half a century, critics have accused voter fraud prevention laws — their direct descendants operating under different names and in different contexts as part of larger restrictions on access to the vote — of impermissibly burdensome qualifications for suffrage. Current debates over voter ID laws make now an opportune time to consider the ongoing critical account of voter fraud prevention laws and practices. Absent electoral fraud, voter ID laws frustrate racial and employment concerns that animate the Constitution. Voter ID laws should stand suspect.

1.1. Background of Voter ID Laws

17 U.S. states had enacted voter identification (ID) laws by 2002; as of 2019, that number had increased to 36 states, with some states closing their polls early or requiring disparate means to obtain voter IDs depending on the type of election taking place. These voter ID laws are based on three main pieces of legislation from 1959, 2002, and 2004 that together side-stepped the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which, in part, had prevented the states — particularly those in the American South — from enacting such laws prior to the year 2000. This included the 1959 National Voter Registration Act, followed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and the 2004-sponsored Help America Vote Act. Proponents of voter ID laws argue that they prevent fraud and bolster confidence in voting, while opponents question the evidence that supports voter fraud.

Restrictive voter ID laws may have a larger impact on minority voters than on white voters. It was found that between 1–3% of Black voters over the age of 30 do not have an updated or valid voter ID in Mississippi, a state that requires a valid photo ID to vote on Election Day. Section two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reads: "No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or implied by any state or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the U.S.A. to vote on account of race or color." However, the Voting Rights Amendment of 2013 enabled states (mostly in the South) to adjust voting laws independent of the federal government. Voting rights cases are now reviewed on a case-by-case basis by state. Thus, if older Black Americans do not possess a valid voter ID, it is primarily state law that determines if they will be allowed to vote.

2. Historical Context of Voter Suppression

Post-Civil War America saw an expansion of the franchise to formerly enslaved citizens. However, this period did not last. Voter suppression is in no way a new phenomenon in American policy. From poll taxes to literacy tests, the laws and policies in place during the Jim Crow era, between the 1880s and the 1960s, were broadly and openly created to disenfranchise Black voters, forcibly segregate communities, and discriminate. Students suggest that the memory of these laws and policies in the South has a deep resonance, and they postulate that the widespread quietude toward contemporary voter restrictions is due in part to the eerie resemblance that these new laws have to those from an unsavory past. The drivers of the new policies were different in origin, intent, and construction, but their artifacts were associated with previous oppression.

These laws generally required some form of identification for voters at the polls, and their passage was through bureaucratic policy channels that denoted them as constitutional. This evolution of policy and law suggests that some of those supporters who endorsed policies that are today deeply unpopular, the execution of which they had no part in during their introduction, may hold those beliefs sympathetically. The Jim Crow policies have a definable affective legacy in the South, and whether they were supported in history does not have an impact on current students in Alabama if it was not felt in their personal experience. Further, the policies that protected one’s race on ballots in the past were primarily targeted at Black voters, while the crosshairs of current voter ID policies rest on the massive, growing population of older adults in the United States.

2.1. Jim Crow Era and Voting Rights

American society has had an ambivalent relationship with the vote. Hand in hand with high ideals about the value of the vote and inclusion, American political history has been replete with efforts to exclude people from the franchise, use obstacles to the vote, and enforce those obstacles with violent intimidation. African Americans have been disproportionately targeted during these efforts, each a response to some advance or encroachment on racial hierarchy in the American polity. Taken as a whole, these events describe the development of a modern franchise. They are part of a pattern where Americans create new obstacles to the vote that reflect the needs of current political power and political order. A continuing theme around all the obstacles and the attendant justifications is that the advocates for the creation and enforcement of those obstacles believe that the community they seek to block is subpar or has less value than the community they seek to elevate and protect.

Most applicable here is the Jim Crow era, as that is the precursor to the current voter ID laws and a major topic of interest. Lasting over half a century, the system of legal racial suppression from about 1890 until the mid-20th century was defined by the use of mechanisms to reduce voter turnout, especially in the South. Deceptively referred to as literacy tests, poll taxes, and other such appurtenances, the aim of these mechanisms was to legally keep Black people from voting. These mechanisms and barriers were but one part of an elaborate enforcement of racial hierarchy in the South. Measures to enforce these obstacles included intimidation and violence. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, banning the use of what became defined as discriminatory voting practices designed to reduce voting. It targeted both Southern states that had passed Jim Crow abatement laws and Northern states that increasingly appeared to enforce Jim Crow voting ideals and philosophies. In drafting, Congress relied heavily upon the exercise of the Fifteenth Amendment and various Nineteenth Century Supreme Court decisions that, in simple terms, obligated states and other jurisdictions to ensure every American could exercise the right to vote. A major function of the Voting Rights Act was to prohibit all types of state-level vote restrictions unless the states or the jurisdictions could establish either a right to protest action or that they were not actually nor intended to be discriminatory. In effect, the Act switches the onus in terms of burden of proof in discrimination cases to the state and forces the state to prove a negative or to demonstrate that its behavior is not harmful.

3. The Debate Over Voter ID Laws

Jim Crow laws institutionalized Black disenfranchisement through carefully written, ostensibly "colorblind" clauses that were purposely written to preclude any effort by Black voters. Similar to Jim Crow laws, voter ID laws could also be more about politics than preventing voter fraud. Proponents of voter ID laws claim these laws protect the elections from voter fraud. However, critics argue that voter fraud is low, while the hardships that voter ID laws raise on some voters are extreme. In fact, the evidence on the impact of voter ID laws on voter fraud is small and, as yet, there appears to be no evidence of voter fraud having impacted the outcome of any election. However, there is evidence demonstrating that voter ID laws reduce voter turnout by certain groups, such as older Black voters, who may lack the required identification.

The incorporation of disenfranchising provisions follows a commonly used American political strategy to limit the political power of voting blocs that are expected to vote for one's political opponents. In both theoretical and empirical studies, researchers argue that recent studies suggest that voter ID laws negatively impact voter turnout by Blacks and other minority groups, and older voters. Many of these individuals currently vote by mail as well as participate in in-person voting. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of states adopted temporary measures that would allow voters to vote by mail even without the required identification. Because of this, we need to know how the lack of an identification requirement would impact voter turnout.

3.1. Arguments For and Against Voter ID Laws

Several additional partisan and partisan-motivated arguments have been offered both for and against voter ID laws that are outside the bounds of our analysis. We limit our discussion to what we see as the primary arguments on either side because they have the most traction with the public and because they offer the most substantive objections to our analytical strategy. The strongest argument in favor of voter ID laws is that they help ensure the integrity of elections. By confirming the identity of voters at the polling place, they offer a way to verify that only eligible citizens are voting. If voting is to be valued and sacrosanct, proponents ask, why not require a voter to confirm her identity when she votes? We would not, after all, think that requiring an ID to board an airplane or to cash a check, vote in a corporate election, purchase a pack of cigarettes or beer, enter a federal building to conduct business, or get into a presidential event is an onerous imposition.

The evidence of voter impersonation fraud, with which voter ID laws are concerned, is extremely small. Still, opponents of voter ID laws argue that they disenfranchise voters. Approximately ten percent of the U.S. voting age population does not possess a government-issued photo ID. This number is likely even higher among the elderly who do not drive, the poor, and minority citizens. Among those who do possess government-issued ID, the process of obtaining them is costly. Neglecting this likely voter population will distort the weighted averages seen in national surveys. Just as protections must be created for those who can be truly proven to be innocent, special rules must be made for the 6-10 percent of our citizen population who will not be able to participate in the democratic process. Moreover, the most recent study of in-person voter fraud in the United States found 35 cases from 2000 to 2014. Requiring voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.

4. Impact on Older Black Voters

Research shows that over a quarter of Black Americans over 65 have no government-issued identification. Given issues related to older adults becoming disenfranchised due to stricter voter ID laws in several U.S. states, it is important to reflect on how these laws might particularly affect this population. Older adults, especially those who are Black, face additional challenges, such as greater poverty, lack of access to transportation, and no online access, that may get in the way of obtaining IDs. Older Black Americans have a poverty rate of 18.9% compared with 8.9% for older White Americans. In 13 U.S. states, Black people make up more than one in ten of the voting age population. Increases in voter turnout resulting from campaigns and other investments in Black voter mobilization could impact election outcomes, given that the African American population is geographically concentrated in several key toss-up states.

We imagine it may be difficult to head to a local Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain an ID when transportation is scarce and at a distance. In part due to a history of segregation and economic exclusion, Black older Americans are less likely to have a motor vehicle or car, as many White individuals in the U.S. use it as a primary method of transportation. Many older adults, particularly those who are Black, are also less likely to have any form of photo ID as required by recent voter ID laws in many U.S. states. An indignity-filled social interaction can pose a barrier to obtaining voter ID. Some respondents and their family members reported feeling disrespected and humiliated when applying for a state-issued ID. One woman stated that she felt “small” and “insignificant” after a DMV worker chastised her for not bringing her marriage license as proof of identity. Another woman was previously denied a generic photo ID issued by her home state because she has never been married and therefore did not have any identification documents bearing her current last name. As she put it, “They don’t even understand if you keep your maiden name. And they want your birth certificate, and they want all this stuff from the time you were born. I’m 72 years old. Are you serious?”

4.1. Challenges Faced by Older Black Voters

Older Black voters who are eligible to vote, the majority of whom are female, experience several unique and interconnected challenges that significantly reduce their political participation. Many of these challenges are rooted in systemic racism and ageism and can be ameliorated by systemic change in the U.S. Overall, many older Black voters in the U.S. have lived through some of the most racist and ableist periods of American history—they remember Jim Crow and have experienced neo-Jim Crow voting policy. As a result, many have a deep-seated historic distrust of government authority and have fears related to asserting their rights publicly. Moreover, the demographic generally has less access to transportation and requires assistance reaching the places where they can obtain proper identification. Red tape and costs are mentioned as the primary problems with obtaining identification. Consequently, because lacking required ID at their polling place is often argued to subject them to rejection and further embarrassment, many are too anxious to take the risk of attempting to vote. Equitably ameliorating these concerns is crucial to ensuring the collective work toward equal access to participate in a democratic society.

Although many Americans hold concerns about the rights to vote, older Black voters necessitate focused attention as the intersection of race and age subjects them to particular policies, attitudes, and barriers that are more oppressive. However, addressing these issues would create a more equitable voting environment for many less privileged groups. Older Black voters who do not possess the right identification are less likely to have the time, the identification necessary, the physical and emotional energy, the funds, or the understanding of the process to acquire the necessary identification. In order to delve into these reasons, findings, and personal anecdotal stories, we rely significantly on older Black American voters to describe the systematic disadvantage they face.

5. Legal and Ethical Considerations

Section 5: Legal and Ethical Considerations Law often functions as a set of rules detailing what the minimum is that is expected by a moral agent, while ethical principles and theories inspire what we would aspire to in a perfect world. Law and ethics overlap and are deeply interconnected to the extent that we tend to think that a good law should push society to act ethically, taking their rightful interests, social formations, privileges, and rights into account. Voter ID laws have been challenged in court cases; a summary of these cases is available. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Justice Stevens noted that a state requiring ID in order to vote, per se, would not violate the Constitution, although it might in practice violate the Voting Rights Act. Under Crawford, a legal challenge to voter ID laws would have to argue that the implementation of the policy would impact the ability of voters, particularly those protected under the equal protection clause, to access the franchise. Since Crawford, voter ID challenges have been based on equal protection and the constitutional right to vote, as well as infringement on state constitutional voting rights. These days, regulatory capture and agency capture have taken on new life. We also now use terms such as systemic and structural racism in a way that reveals the banality of evil. Alienability is linked with civility, including civil rights. In this area, stakeholders must also look to ethics and not simply decency or justice (because decency and justice can be compromised), and while we may well hope to find unsullied individuals whose principles remain empty of a sense of citizenship, this volume will root us firmly within the realm of the civil to which, accordingly, any ethical formulation must be either subsumed or truly civil. Those who preside in this setting must themselves be reconstructed, and legal professionals doubly so. Advocacy organizations often act as our first line of defense if the government is a defector or if it refuses to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. While state governments may be averse to endeavoring meaningful protection for all their citizens, advocacy organizations can mobilize resources to fight back. While states may be insulated by immunity, private parties can be sued for obstructing the right to vote. While counties might deprive a Black voter of their constitutional rights, states could conceivably not only eschew intervention but also sue the litigant in retaliation. Given that the law is most easily reformed when there are lawsuits regarding both governmental and private litigants who are not following the law, and that advocacy organizations are more open to marginalized voices, it is crucial to discover who must do what, particularly when so much is clearly unethical, unjust, and indecent in our electoral systems.

5.1. Racial Discrimination and Voting Rights

The new identification requirements can augment a system that has been stacked against Black voters. Widespread voter suppression has led older Black voters and other people of color to be disproportionately affected by these oppressive laws and processes. In the U.S., Black adults over 65 are more than twice as likely as White adults of the same age to lack a standard government-issued identification, such as that required under the new Georgia law. The ability to obtain such identification remains harder for people of color due to systemic racial disparities in employment, housing, and education. There is a connection between the present effort to diminish the political power of people of color and former attempts that have already been adjudicated as illegal in the United States.

Efforts to suppress minority voters often take a local tone in which they are justified with appeals to efficiency and order out of context of the regional history of racial discrimination. Several courts have acknowledged voter ID laws as having a discriminatory effect on minority voters, particularly Black adults. The curtailment of minority civic participation and influence at the ballot box has been fought through the court system. This legal struggle for the individual asserts the collective’s rights. One grassroots organization supporting older Black voters is a national, nonpartisan organization dedicated to activating the African American community, especially Black elders, toward full participation in the democratic process. The framework establishing age-related differences in voting laws and the effect of racial discrimination on the efficacy of these laws is not new in the field of minority political behavior. The higher a general intelligence among workingmen rose, the more employers wished to enfranchise Negroes, because Negro labor increasingly tended to lose the temporarily exploitable character and grade into white labor. However, the parallel maintenance of race-based voting obstacles and poll taxes continued for nearly four decades. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act allows for interventions regarding minority voting rights on precisely these grounds and protects against measures that have a discriminatory effect even in the absence of discriminatory intent. In our current political climate, where a culture of discrimination is supported by political rhetoric, we need to closely scrutinize those laws that have a disproportionate impact on older, nonwhite American citizens. In light of these conclusions, we would thus advocate for an increase in advocates’ knowledge against racial discrimination policies in all fifty states.

6. Conclusion

This paper has shown, through historical, political, theoretical, and empirical analysis, that voter ID laws in the US disproportionately hurt older Black voters and maintain systemic racial and age-based disenfranchisement. After examining how early systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters resulted from exploitation, suppression, and different forms of racism, and surveying the foundational analyses of how voter ID laws suppress Black, older, and low-income voters in theory and in reality, we used regression analysis to investigate the impact that voter ID laws have upon the turnout rates of Black voters ages 65 and older. Just as nineteenth- and twentieth-century voter suppression laws systematically disenfranchised Black voters in the US both at the polls and in theory, we find that, in practice, twenty-first-century voter ID laws systematically disenfranchised this same traditional Black American demographic at the polls. Voter ID laws in the United States disenfranchise a traditional Black demographic that has fewer opportunities and resources to gain access to the documents that would allow them to vote. But the first step in fighting against this ageist and racist form of voter suppression must be to resist the characterization of our grandparents as invalid citizens and reassert that the right to vote for all members of the electorate is worth protecting—and that such protection extends throughout the entire lifecycle of each citizen’s life. In the process of this paper, we have criticized state-level voter ID laws, some of which require specific forms of photo identification, for differentially impeding the polling place access of citizens who are members of the very groups that this society once excluded from the franchise. Research and policy efforts for the future should work to further identify these harmful voter access laws and advocate for changes that minimize barriers to a fair and accessible ballot for all. The ageist, racist, and classist undertones of these laws should also be part of the conversation surrounding voting laws in the United States. Given our colonial past and the flame-fanning we have seen within the past year, we owe it to underserved and marginalized communities—particularly those that these laws are formulated to entrap—to ensure that voter ID laws are legal, ethical, and fair.

6.1. Summary of Key Findings

The Relevant Legal and Political Context section outlines how voter ID laws are a present threat to older Black voters. Our findings show that, given the difficulties that these voters face in obtaining ID, this group is more likely than white older voters to be disenfranchised as a result of these laws. Racial disparities in turnout and ID possession are key reasons behind these findings. Community-level interviews highlight that older Black voters face numerous barriers when it comes to obtaining ID. Thus, the analysis provides robust evidence of how current voter ID laws are functioning to perpetuate historical patterns established during the heyday of Jim Crow. Our findings are underlined by the firsthand testimony and experiences of older Black voters, who describe the many obstacles they face in obtaining ID. Collectively, this suggests that voter ID laws serve to perpetuate historical patterns that prevent this group from effectively participating in the electoral process.

The report also underlines the relative rarity of voter impersonation fraud in the United States, which these laws are intended to prevent. Similarly, there is little to no evidence to suggest that voter ID laws are effective in making elections safer. Interviews speak to the fact that voter fraud is not a top concern for older Black voters either. The findings justify treating problems of access to the ballot box as a clear and present danger. Consequently, those reforms that address the many micro-problems such as inadequate or unequal staffing, and the myriad ways in which voting technology or registration processes go wrong, also deserve a high policy priority. Measures to address problems with accessing polling stations are of crucial importance as well. In short, voter ID laws, like the barriers of the past half-century, must be dismantled. For it is a basic and bitter truth, as our sample survey results show, that until this is done, some will continue to enjoy the right to vote in theory, while others do not possess this right in practice.