Voter ID: Ensuring Electoral Integrity or Politicizing Democracy?

Voter ID: Ensuring Electoral Integrity or Politicizing Democracy?

Next month’s local elections will be Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s first major electoral test. Since taking over from Liz Truss amid a political and economic meltdown, Sunak has impressed Westminster-watchers by not only restoring stability but also notching up a series of achievements, from negotiating the Windsor Framework with the EU to brokering the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade bloc. The elections will therefore provide an opportunity to see how this translates into support on the ground as the next general election comes increasingly into view over the horizon.

However, these elections will also be significant for another reason, one which has attracted relatively little attention and analysis so far: namely that this will be the first UK-wide election at which voters will have to present a valid form of photo ID in order to cast their ballot. This could have implications on turnout and, therefore, on the result of these elections as well as the next general election. It could also be a step on the way towards a US-style politicization of the machinery of democracy, where questions of Who can vote? and How? are as polarizing as competing policies.

Why Is Photo ID Being Introduced?

The introduction of photo ID at polling stations on a UK-wide basis (this requirement has already existed in Northern Ireland since 2003) has been controversial, with many questioning the need for it. For example, out of over 58 million votes cast across all elections in 2019, there were 595 allegations of electoral fraud of which 33 related to voter impersonation at a polling station.

For its part, the Government has argued that an absence of evidence does not necessarily mean voter fraud is not taking place. It has also cited the 2014 mayoral election in Tower Hamlets which was declared null and void following multiple breaches of election law. The Government claims the new measures would address a potential vulnerability and therefore safeguard the "transparency, fairness, and accountability” of UK elections. In an ironic twist, given its general inclination and the political pressure it faces from some quarters to do things differently to the rest of Europe post-Brexit, the Government has also defended its policy on the grounds it would bring the UK into line with other European countries.

Given the relative lack of evidence of a systemic problem (the Tower Hamlets case was not fundamentally about in-person voting fraud), opponents of the changes have argued they are motivated primarily by partisan advantage. Labour’s Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner, has said there is no doubt in her mind this is an attempt to make it harder for non-Conservative inclined demographic groups to vote.

How Many People Are Affected and What Would the Partisan Impact Be?

It is hard to ascertain how many people could be impacted, but credible studies suggest that somewhere between one million and 3.5 million eligible voters do not have one of the accepted forms of photo ID.

Where this is the case, people can apply for a free Voter Authority Certificate (VAC) up to a few days before the vote, although it is likely some people will not be aware of this or may be put off by the process. With just under a month until the vote, just over 50,000 people had applied for a VAC, a small fraction of those estimated not to have another valid form of photo ID. That said, it is not clear how many of these people would vote in any event.

Furthermore, there is some anecdotal evidence from campaigners that even people with valid photo IDs may be put off by the hassle or perceived hassle. In the 2019 local elections, at which voter ID was trialled in several areas, a third of voters who were initially turned away did not return to vote again with photo ID, although it is not clear whether this was because they didn’t have valid photo ID or because they couldn’t or didn’t want to return. The numbers were not huge — 1,968 voters were initially refused of whom 740 did not return — but extrapolated onto the national level this would still mean thousands of people being disenfranchised and it could be enough to tip the balance in tight contests.

In terms of the partisan impact, while the research does suggest that Labour-leaning demographics could be most impacted, it is questionable whether the Government would be doing this if the inverse were true. For example, analysis in the wake of the 2017 General Election conducted by Professor Chris Hanretty, an expert in the field of electoral systems, and Financial Times data journalist John Burn-Murdoch found a strong correlation between the possession of a driving licence and voting patterns, with people who hold driving licences being more likely to vote Conservative.

Many have also highlighted the disproportional impact these changes will have on different demographic groups. According to 2021 census data, while three-quarters of those identifying as “White British” people hold a driving licence, 38% of “Asian” people and 48% of “Black” people said that they do not. While Conservatives have made notable progress with non-White voters (as evidenced by the diversity of their own frontbench in recent years), overall ethnic minority voters are still more likely to vote Labour.

In addition, the Government has said a number of forms of photo ID issued to older people (e.g., those entitling them to free travel) will be accepted but not forms of photo ID disproportionately issued to younger people (e.g., student cards). In the 2019 election it was estimated that young people preferred Labour by a margin of +35 while over-65 voters preferred the Conservatives by a margin of +47, which has also been cited as evidence of a desire to tilt the playing field in favor of the Conservatives.

Conclusion

Ultimately, voter ID is highly unlikely to swing the overall result of local elections, notwithstanding the potential impact on individual contests that at local council level can be decided by a handful of votes. However, it could have a bigger impact on the upcoming general election which could take place as soon as May 2024. This is because the electorate is broader and comprises people who are less engaged in the day-to-day political process and, as such, may not have taken note of the new requirements. Paradoxically, this risk would be higher if the local elections go relatively smoothly and there is no flurry of media coverage of people being turned away at the ballot box.

While polling suggests currently that Labour would win comfortably regardless, if the polls were to narrow amid a Tory resurgence, the results in a small number of key seats could determine the outcome between a hung parliament or a Labour majority. If this, in turn, was accompanied by large numbers of people being unable to vote, the UK political debate could see importation of themes more prevalent in the US around “election integrity” versus “voter suppression,” in turn making the democratic process itself contested. So far, the UK has largely been spared this importation, despite attempts by former UKIP-leader Nigel Farage to cast doubt on the integrity of postal voting.

We won’t really know the answer to any of these questions until polling station data from the local elections is analyzed. Expect the post-mortem to be a hot topic of discussion as we look towards the general election.