Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

The development of a neutral, professional bureaucracy has been a profound concern for emerging democracies. International and domestic actors have expended significant resources to encourage the development of the rule of law, yet many postcommunist societies remain mired in corruption. When corrupt behaviors are integrated with a core function of democratic states, such as the implementation of free and fair elections, the implications of failures to professionalize bureaucrats are enhanced. This article empirically evaluates how professionalization and corruption interact in election administration, using unique survey data from Ukraine. We assess the results of pre‐ and postelection surveys of administrators conducted across Ukraine during the 2014 parliamentary elections. Our results suggest that aspects of a professionalized bureaucracy coexist with corruption and that mitigating incentives for state capture is a major challenge for democratization.

show abstract

“… Our argument is similar to Atkenson et al () who find that poll workers differ from other types of bureaucrats.…”

supporting

confidence: 92%

Serving Two Masters: Professionalization versus Corruption in Ukraine's Election Administration

Herron

Boyko²,

Thunberg

2016

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others have shown that a lack of identification is particularly acute among the minority population, the poor, and the young (Ansolabehere 2014; Barreto, Nuno, and Sanchez 2009;Barreto and Sanchez 2014; but see Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz 2011). 3 A different set of researchers has attempted to assess whether the existing laws are applied evenly and have found that poll workers disproportionately ask minorities for identification (Ansolabehere 2009;Atkeson et al 2010Atkeson et al , 2014Cobb, Greiner, and Quinn 2012;Rogowski and Cohen 2014;White, Nathan, and Faller 2015). There is even some evidence that in a small set of cases provisional ballots that should have been counted have ultimately not been included in vote tallies (Pitts 2013).…”

Section: Evaluating Voter Id Lawsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes

Hajnal

Lajevardi

Nielson

2017

The Journal of Politics

227

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proliferation of increasingly strict voter identification laws around the country has raised concerns about voter suppression. Although there are many reasons to suspect that these laws could harm groups like racial minorities and the poor, existing studies have been limited, with most occurring before states enacted strict identification requirements, and they have uncovered few effects. By using validated voting data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study for several recent elections, we are able to offer a more definitive test. The analysis shows that strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections. We also find that voter ID laws skew democracy toward those on the political right. V oting is the bedrock of democracy. Through the vote, citizens choose leaders, sway policy, and generally influence democracy. By contrast, citizens who do not vote can be ignored. It is thus not surprising to see that the laws that shape turnout and determine who can and who cannot vote generate enormous attention and controversy. The latest front in this debate concerns voter identification laws. Voter identification laws have been a topic of discussion since 1950, when South Carolina became the first state to request some form of identification at the polls (NCSL 2015). Since then, more and more states have instituted some form of voter ID law. But it is only within the past decade that the strictest forms of voter ID have proliferated and that voter ID laws have received widespread attention. Today these voter ID laws take several distinct forms. Strict voter ID laws require identification in order to cast a regular ballot. Other more lenient laws request, but do not require, voters to show some kind of identification document at the polls. These laws can also be distinguished by whether or not they allow or consider nonphoto identification. All told, 34 states currently enforce some form of a voter identification law (NCSL 2015). Of these, 11 are strict ID law states that require a person to show identification in order to vote. 1 More states appear to be waiting in the wings. New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and others are all considering new stricter voter identification laws (NCSL 2015). The consequences of all of this could be enormous. Given that more than half of the nation's population is currently subject to these laws, that stricter laws are being considered in multiple states, and that the courts are actively evaluating the merits of these laws in a series of landmark cases, there is a compelling need to know exactly what the true impact of these laws is. There is no shortage of opinions about these laws. On one side, the proliferation of these laws raises real concerns for critics who believe that they are unnecessary and ultimately detrimental to democracy. Activist groups, like the Brennan Center for Justice, claim that voter ID laws serve as effective barriers that limit the legitimate participation of racia...

show abstract

“…The temporary nature of their work means poll workers have less opportunity to develop a shared set of organizational norms to ensure consistent running of elections (Atkeson et al, 2014). Whereas career bureaucrats may develop a shared commitment to the quality of an agency, poll workers do not consistently have this opportunity.…”

Section: Poll Workers As Street-level Bureaucratsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poll Worker Decision Making at the American Ballot Box

Suttmann‐Lea

2020

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Street-level bureaucrats set the terms for policy implementation and often operate under limited oversight. In American elections, poll workers are the street-level bureaucrats tasked with implementing a jurisdiction’s laws for verifying voter eligibility. Using in-depth interviews with 24 poll workers from the city of Chicago, this article assesses how poll workers make decisions about voter eligibility under Illinois’ signature-matching law. Respondents discussed a range of considerations used when they examine voter eligibility. The evidence I present suggests they rely on personal perspectives and experiences in their evaluations. Respondents also offered a range of responses for how they would proceed in the instance of a mismatching signature—including requesting voters provide identification even though it is not a requirement in Illinois unless a voter is challenged. Broadly, these results illustrate how poll workers’ subjective interpretations of election law shape their decisions and can lead to idiosyncratic applications of election law.

show abstract

Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

Cited by 38 publications

References 25 publications

Serving Two Masters: Professionalization versus Corruption in Ukraine's Election Administration

Serving Two Masters: Professionalization versus Corruption in Ukraine's Election Administration

Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes

Poll Worker Decision Making at the American Ballot Box

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About