IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v99y2018i2p490-511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Republicans Won on Voter Identification Laws: The Roles of Strategic Reasoning and Moral Conviction

Author

Listed:
  • Pamela Johnston Conover
  • Patrick R. Miller

Abstract

Objectives American political elites heatedly disagree over voter identification (ID) laws. Yet, the issue is not particularly polarizing at the mass level. Previous research mostly explores voter ID attitude correlates and how those policies shape turnout, but offers less insight into how average citizens understand the issue. We explore competing partisan frames on voter ID—voter fraud and voter suppression—that advance subtexts about partisan motivations and whom these laws benefit. Method We use an original nationally representative survey to examine how partisan motivated reasoning, strategic reasoning, and moral conviction influence voter ID frame perceptions and policy support among partisans. Results For average partisans, strategic reasoning and moral conviction significantly influence frame perceptions and voter ID attitudes, though not always along predicted party lines. Motivated reasoning proves inconsequential. Conclusions Republicans have won the “framing war†over voter ID, largely neutralizing the Democratic voter suppression frame, even among average Democrats.

Suggested Citation

  • Pamela Johnston Conover & Patrick R. Miller, 2018. "How Republicans Won on Voter Identification Laws: The Roles of Strategic Reasoning and Moral Conviction," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(2), pages 490-511, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:2:p:490-511
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12410
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12410?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:2:p:490-511. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.