When Edward and Mary Weidenbener went to vote in Indiana’s primary in May, they didn’t know state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver’s license or passport.
The husband and wife, both approaching 90 years old, had to use a temporary ballot that would be verified later. Unaware that Indiana law obligated them to follow up with the county election board, the Weidenbeners had their votes rejected — news to them until they were informed by an Associated Press reporter.
Edward Weidenbener, a World War II veteran who had voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential contest, said he was surprised by the rules and the consequences.
“A lot of people don’t have a photo ID,” he said. “They’ll be automatically disenfranchised.”
As more states put in place strict voter-ID rules, an AP review of temporary ballots from Indiana and Georgia, which first adopted the most stringent standards, found that more than 1,200 such votes were tossed during the 2008 general election.
During sparsely attended primaries this year in Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee, the states implementing the toughest laws, hundreds more ballots were blocked.
The numbers suggest that the legitimate votes rejected by the laws are far more numerous than are the cases of fraud that advocates of the rules say they are trying to prevent. Thousands more votes could be in jeopardy in November, when more states with larger populations are looking to have similar rules in place.
More than two dozen states have some form of ID requirement, and 11 of those passed new rules over the past two years largely at the urging of Republicans who say they want to prevent fraud.
Democrats and voting-rights groups fear that ID laws could suppress votes among people who might not typically have a driver’s license and disproportionately affect the elderly, poor and minorities.
Although the number of votes is a small percentage of the overall total, they have the potential to sway a close election. The 2000 presidential race was decided by a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but fraud appears to be rare. As part of its effort to build support for voter-ID laws, the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified about 400 election- fraud prosecutions over a decade across the country.
ID laws would not have prevented many of those cases because they involved vote-buying schemes in local elections or people who falsified voter registrations.
Election administrators and academics who monitor the issue said in-person fraud is rare because someone would have to impersonate a registered voter and risk arrest. A 2008 Supreme Court case drew detailed briefs from the federal government, 10 states and other groups that identified only nine potential impersonation cases over the span of several years, according to a tally by the Brennan Center at New York University.
Michael Thielen, executive director of the Republican lawyers group, said its survey was not comprehensive and that he thinks vote fraud is a serious problem.
“Most of it goes unreported and unprosecuted,” he said.
Several election administrators — even those who support ID laws as a barrier to potential fraud — said the rejected ballots in their counties appeared to be legitimate voters who simply did not fulfill their ID obligations.
Donna Sharp, the administrator of elections in Hawkins County, Tenn., said she saw no signs of fraud. Of the seven people who cast absentee ballots, six didn’t come in to confirm their identity. Sharp knew one of them personally.
But Sharp said she supports the ID law despite initial concerns. She said most people were aware of the requirement and able to provide their identification, and she thought the rules provided an extra layer of security.
“We want to protect those voters who do need their vote to count — the people who are doing things in an honest manner,” Sharp said.
Indiana, Georgia and Tennessee require that voters provide a photo ID at the polls. Failing that, voters can use a temporary ballot that can be verified later, when they must meet with local elections administrators to sort out the matter.
Pennsylvania is putting a similar law in place for the November election. Kansas has comparable rules. Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin are moving in that direction of having rules set for this year if they survive court challenges and federal approval.
Virginia had a rule allowing voters without proper ID to sign an identity statement; a false claim could make them subject to felony punishment. Under a new law awaiting final approval from the Justice Department, voters who do not bring proper ID, which doesn’t necessarily have to have a photo, must use a temporary ballot and later provide ID to the local election board.
