IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v136y2021i4p2615-2660..html

Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Author

Listed:
  • Enrico Cantoni
  • Vincent Pons

Abstract

U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote—an ostensible attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a panel data set with 1.6 billion observations, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications. Our most demanding specification controls for state, year, and voter fixed effects, along with state and voter time-varying controls. Based on this specification, we obtain point estimates of −0.1 percentage points for effects both on overall registration and turnout (with 95% confidence intervals of [−2.3; 2.1 percentage points] and [−3.0; 2.8 percentage points], respectively), and +1.4 percentage points for the effect on the turnout of nonwhite voters relative to whites (with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.5; 3.2 percentage points]). The lack of negative impact on voter turnout cannot be attributed to voters’ reaction against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. However, the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud, actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2615-2660.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:136:y:2021:i:4:p:2615-2660.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/qje/qjab019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weiss, Amanda, 2024. "How Much Should We Trust Modern Difference-in-Differences Estimates?," OSF Preprints bqmws, Center for Open Science.
    2. Karthik Muralidharan & Paul Niehaus & Sandip Sukhtankar, 2025. "Identity Verification Standards in Welfare Programs: Experimental Evidence from India," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 107(2), pages 372-392, March.
    3. Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina & Bucheli, Jose R., 2020. "Immigration Policy and Hispanics' Willingness to Run for Office," IZA Discussion Papers 13698, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Lawrence R. Jacobs & Judd Choate, 2022. "Democratic Capacity: Election Administration as Bulwark and Target," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 22-35, January.
    5. Oliver Engist & Felix Schafmeister, 2022. "Do political protests mobilize voters? Evidence from the Black Lives Matter protests," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 293-313, December.
    6. Kyle Raze, 2022. "Voting rights and the resilience of Black turnout," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(3), pages 1127-1141, July.
    7. Cheng, Maoyong & Meng, Yu & Zhang, Muyang, 2024. "Blessing or bane: The absence of a leader, political selection, and economic growth," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    8. Bloem, Michael D. & Holbein, John B. & Imlay, Samuel J. & Smith, Jonathan, 2025. "Voting Among Siblings," IZA Discussion Papers 17962, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Liu, Yinan & Zai, Xianhua, 2022. "Does Aging at Home Make Older Adults Healthy: Evidence from Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1079 [rev.], Global Labor Organization (GLO), revised 2022.
    10. Apoorva Lal & Daniel M Thompson, 2023. "Did Private Election Administration Funding Advantage Democrats in 2020?," Papers 2310.05275, arXiv.org.
    11. Matteo Cervellati & Giorgio Gulino & Paolo Roberti, 2024. "Random Votes to Parties and Policies in Coalition Governments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(5), pages 1553-1588, September.
    12. Liu, Yinan & Zai, Xianhua, 2022. "The Benefits of Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services on Health," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1079, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    13. Emre Ekinci & David Wehrheim, 2024. "Holdup, Knowledge Transferability, and Productivity: Theory and Evidence from Knowledge Workers," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 193-252, March.
    14. Andrea Bernini & Giovanni Facchini & Marco Tabellini & Cecilia Testa, 2024. "Sixty years of the Voting Rights Act: progress and pitfalls," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 40(3), pages 486-497.
    15. Phoebe Henninger & Marc Meredith & Michael Morse, 2021. "Who Votes Without Identification? Using Individual‐Level Administrative Data to Measure the Burden of Strict Voter Identification Laws," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 256-286, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:oup:qjecon:v:136:y:2021:i:4:p:2615-2660.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/qje .

    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.