The original video that this post is based on, can be found here.
This issue boils down to one core dilemma. Will voter ID and enhanced security around mail-in voting help fix voter fraud? OR do these measures in fact only serve to disenfranchise legitimate voters in marginalized communities? This debate centers around that balance between ensuring election integrity, and also protecting voter rights.
First we’ll cover both sides of this issue, the arguments from those who support, and oppose, and some facts backing both of those arguments. Then we’ll get to how you’re being manipulated by the people you back, and finally I’ll give you my opinions on the matter.
The Issues
The case FOR tighter election security.
- Preventing Voter Fraud: Critics argue that voter ID laws help prevent individuals from impersonating others at polling stations or submitting fraudulent ballots.
- Heritage Foundation / Crawford v. Marion County (SCOTUS 2008) — The 7th Circuit reasoned that voter impersonation “has a parallel to littering” — almost impossible to catch — giving states a rationale to take preventative action via photo ID. Heritage Foundation
- America First Policy Institute (2023) — Argues that photo ID requirements protect and ensure voter identity, and that requiring photo ID is supported by 81% of Americans. America First Policy (Right leaning think-tank)
- NYC Department of Investigation (2013) field test — Investigators sent to vote under names of 63 ineligible voters found that 61 of the 63 were allowed to vote illegally under assumed identities Wikipedia
- Enhancing Mail-In Ballot Security: Supporters claim that additional security measures for mail-in voting can reduce the risk of ballot tampering and ensure that only eligible voters cast votes via this method.
- Brennan Center — Mail Ballot Security Features Primer — States use signature verification (with bipartisan second reviews when uncertain), individualized barcodes, ballot tracking, 42-state request verification processes, and provisional ballot systems to prevent double voting. Brennan Center for Justice
- Center for Democracy and Technology — Ballots are printed on special paper with unique barcodes tied to specific voters; when an absentee ballot is returned, the voter file is marked, so if that person shows up in person, poll workers will know — and only one ballot will be counted. Center for Democracy and Technology
- BallotReady — Identity verification allows officials to confirm authenticity by matching signatures and personal information to secure voter registration rolls; unique barcodes allow tracking of each ballot through processing. BallotReady for Organizations
- Brookings Institution (2026) — Several prior analyses have found that mail voting fraud is extremely rare, with universal vote-by-mail systems actually showing the lowest fraud rates. Brookings
- Public Trust in Elections: By implementing stricter voter ID requirements, proponents argue that public confidence in the electoral process is bolstered, which can lead to higher voter turnout and more credible election results.
- Crawford v. Marion County (SCOTUS 2008) established that increasing public confidence is itself a legitimate state interest — the Supreme Court’s rationale in Marion County was that a rational justification for a strict ID law is to instill greater confidence in the electoral process. MIT Election Lab
- Center for Election Confidence — Polling shows 80% of Americans across party lines favor requiring photo ID to vote in person, including 77% of minorities. Electionconfidence (right-leaning source)
- NBER Study (Cantoni & Pons, 2021) — Researchers found that between 2008 and 2016, voter ID laws had no negative effect on registration or turnout overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. Heritage Foundation
- J-PAL / League of Women Voters field experiment — Notifying voters of ID requirements did not negatively affect turnout, and certain messaging actually increased turnout by as much as 1.5 percentage points. Poverty Action Lab
The case AGAINST tighter election security
- Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Voters: Critics argue that voter ID laws disproportionately affect minority, low-income, and elderly voters who may lack easy access to required identification.
- Brennan Center / ACLU Fact Sheet — About 7% of U.S. citizens — over 16 million Americans — cannot confirm they have government-issued photo ID, and those voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities, who more frequently cannot afford or obtain the underlying documents required to apply for a government-issued card. Aclu (Left Leaning)
- League of Women Voters — 18% of all citizens over 65, 16% of Latino voters, 25% of Black voters, and 15% of low-income Americans lack acceptable photo ID, and elderly and low-income voters may not have the financial resources or mobility to obtain it. League of Women Voters (left leaning)
- American Bar Association (2024) — Perhaps as much as 18% of voters over age 65 lack photo ID, with practical barriers including the cost of prerequisite documents like birth certificates, transportation to DMV offices, and time constraints — particularly affecting those on fixed retirement incomes. American Bar Association
- GAO Report (2014) — (U.S. government, nonpartisan) — the gold standard neutral citation: The GAO found that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee reduced turnout by 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points, with the most significant declines among African American and young voters. GAO Report
- Texas court record — A 2017 voter ID law in Texas was struck down for discriminating against Hispanic and African American voters, who were found to be 195% and 120% more likely, respectively, to lack acceptable ID compared to white voters. LawShun
- Lack of Widespread Evidence for Voter Fraud: Opponents point out that there is scant evidence of widespread voter fraud in the United States, making such measures seem like an overreaction to a minor problem.
- Brennan Center for Justice — A specialized DOJ unit formed to find federal election fraud examined the 2002 and 2004 federal elections and was able to prove that 0.00000013% of ballots cast were fraudulent, with no evidence that any involved in-person impersonation fraud. Brennan Center for Justice
- News21 / Center for Public Integrity — A review of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases across 50 states from 2000–2012 found only 10 cases of voter impersonation — the only kind preventable by voter ID at polls — and out of 38 successful state prosecutions in five key states from 2012–2016, none were for voter impersonation. Public Integrity
- Justin Levitt / Washington Post — From 2000 to 2012, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation during a period in which over 1 billion ballots were cast. Aclu
- Federal courts — A federal trial court in Wisconsin found that impersonation fraud is “extremely rare” and “a truly isolated phenomenon,” and even the Supreme Court in Crawford noted the record contained no evidence of any in-person impersonation fraud in Indiana’s history. Brennan Center for Justice
- Rutgers professor Lorraine Minnite — Voter fraud remains rare because it is irrational behavior — a fraudulent vote is unlikely to change an election outcome, and the risk of being caught is real. Public Integrity
- Potential Suppression of Democratic Voices: Critics argue that these measures can suppress votes from groups who traditionally support Democratic candidates and policies, thereby undermining the democratic process.
- Biggers & Hanmer (American Politics Research, 2017) — Every instance of a state adopting the most stringent photo ID requirement occurred under Republican unified control of the legislature, with the switch to a unified Republican legislature associated with a 31.5 percentage point increase in the probability of adoption after HAVA. Umd
- Hicks, McKee, Sellers & Smith (Political Research Quarterly, 2015) — The increase in voter ID laws is heavily dependent on the number of Republican lawmakers in the legislature and the competitiveness of the election, suggesting Republican lawmakers believe suppressing voter turnout may help in winning elections. Msu (left leaning)
- MIT Election Lab — A Republican takeover of state government, being a battleground state, and having a rapidly diversifying population are factors common to most states that adopted strict photo ID laws. MIT Election Lab
- Hajnal et al. (primary elections data) — In primary elections, the turnout gap between Republicans and Democrats more than doubles from 4.3 to 9.8 percentage points when strict ID laws are instituted, and the gap between conservatives and liberals more than doubles from 7.7 to 20.4 points — though in general elections, the partisan and ideological impact is less evident. Ucsd (methodology contested in subsequent peer review)
- PNAS (2023) — While the groups most burdened by voter ID laws tend to support Democratic candidates, an analysis of electoral outcomes from 2003–2020 found negligible average effects on party fortunes, as ID requirements appear to motivate and mobilize supporters of both parties. PubMed Central
- North Carolina case — Republican legislators gathered detailed data on voting behavior and racial background of North Carolinians before passing a photo ID bill, and a Republican consultant acknowledged the positions simply reflected each party’s electoral incentives. PubMed Central
Where both sides are being manipulated
- Overstating Voter Fraud Concerns: Supporters often exaggerate instances of voter fraud to justify restrictive measures without providing substantial evidence.
- Stanford Political Science (Justin Grimmer) — A systematic review of the most prominent statistical claims from the post-2020 election fraud operation found that the supposed statistical evidence was often nonsensical — based on basic misconceptions about voter file data — and that many empirical claims, even if true, did not actually constitute evidence of fraud. Stanford Humanities and Sciences
- Brennan Center / Columbia University political scientist — A study tracking voter fraud incidence rates over two years found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.” Brennan Center for Justice
- Heritage Foundation’s own database — The Heritage Foundation’s “Election Fraud” database, often cited to suggest fraud is widespread, records only 34 instances of in-person voter impersonation during a period when roughly 1.5 billion votes were cast in federal elections. Carolinapoliticalreview
- Harvard Berkman Klein Center (2020) — Using quantitative and qualitative analysis of online news, Twitter, and Facebook, researchers found that conversations about voter fraud largely followed an agenda set by Donald Trump, and that peaks of attention to the fraud narrative were strikingly traceable to Trump, RNC members, and Republican officials. Harvard Gazette (Left Leaning)
- Journalist’s Resource / academic research roundup — Research found that local newspaper coverage of voter fraud during the 2012 elections was greatest in presidential swing states and states that recently passed restrictive voting laws — with no evidence that coverage was related to the actual rate of voter fraud in each state. The Journalist’s Resource
- NPR / Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (Republican) — a rare on-the-record admission from the other side: “If you want to get your base excited, if you want to get people to donate to your campaign, if you want to get people to show up at your rally, you push that hyperbole button. You do the fear mongering about widespread fraud,” said LaRose, a Republican, who also faulted Democrats for similarly overstating voter suppression. NPR
- Texas A&M rhetoric expert (NPR) — Jennifer Mercieca, an expert on political rhetoric, noted that social media rewards polemical, emotional expression — which inhibits reasoned debate and can lead to actions addressing problems that don’t actually exist, like voting restrictions in response to fears of widespread fraud. NPR
- Journal of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge, 2021) — Experimental research found that exposure to elite messages alleging voter fraud — even unsubstantiated ones — undermines public confidence in elections, creating a self-fulfilling erosion of trust that the rhetoric itself causes. Cambridge Core
- Downplaying Security Measures’ Benefits: Critics sometimes overlook the potential benefits of security measures in protecting against actual, albeit rare, cases of voter fraud.
- PBS Frontline / News21 — When voter fraud does occur, election law experts say it happens more often through mail-in ballots than through in-person impersonation — meaning that opponents who focus solely on the rarity of impersonation fraud sometimes overlook the types of fraud that do occasionally occur, which voter ID laws also wouldn’t address. PBS
- Heritage Foundation — Opponents of voter ID claim it can only prevent impersonation fraud, but proponents argue it can also deter voting by noncitizens and other categories of ineligible voters — a broader deterrence function that critics sometimes collapse into the narrow impersonation statistics. Heritage Foundation (Right Leaning)
- ACE Electoral Knowledge Network — Support for voter ID laws is often fueled by concerns about fraud, with a 2013 poll finding 43% of Americans believed voter fraud to be relatively common — a perception gap that exists independent of actual fraud rates, and which security measures are partly designed to address regardless of those rates. ACE
- PNAS (2023) — Both parties’ positions on voter ID align with their rational electoral strategies, since the groups most likely to be burdened by the laws tend to support Democratic candidates — suggesting that sincerely held beliefs about security and access are entangled with partisan incentive on both sides. PNAS
- Ohio SoS Frank LaRose (NPR, again) — LaRose called out both sides symmetrically: “Reasonable people should be able to say we will not tolerate voter fraud, we will not tolerate voter suppression,” without implying either is systemic and widespread. NPR
- But, what about those non-citizens voting? Those who back more stringent voter ID laws point at non US citizens voting in our elections. This is actually quite rare.
- The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. It is not legal in any state for a noncitizen to cast a ballot in an election for federal office. Bipartisan Policy Center
- Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents, cannot vote in federal, state, and most local elections. USAGov
- There are some exceptions in local elections like school boards and councils.
- While no state allows noncitizens to vote in federal or statewide elections, at least 16 U.S. jurisdictions permit noncitizens to vote in certain local elections, such as for school board, city council, or mayor. Migration Policy Institute
- As of March 2026, the District of Columbia and certain municipalities in California, Maryland, and Vermont allowed noncitizens to vote in some or all local elections. Ballotpedia
- These are narrow, intentional local policy decisions — not loopholes. San Francisco, for example, explicitly allows noncitizen parents to vote in school board elections only.
- Accidental voter registration can happen, but it audited for.
- Many people are automatically registered to vote when they apply for a driver’s license. In some cases, this can lead to noncitizens being mistakenly registered to vote, though states regularly conduct audits of their databases to remove ineligible voters. Migration Policy Institute
- Nationwide, records from a federal citizenship verification tool show that just 0.04% of voter verification cases are returned as noncitizens. A BPC analysis of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Cases database found only 77 instances of noncitizen voting between 1999 and 2023. Bipartisan Policy Center
- A 2022 Georgia investigation found 1,634 incidents of noncitizens potentially attempting to register to vote between 1997 and 2022 — but all were blocked until they could provide proof of citizenship. Elections officials reported just 0.0001% of 23.5 million votes cast in 42 surveyed jurisdictions were suspected noncitizen votes, with 40 of 42 jurisdictions reporting zero known incidents. Migration Policy Institute
- There are strict penalties for noncitizens who attempt to vote in a federal election.
- Noncitizens face up to five years in federal prison for even registering to vote, and illegal voting can trigger immigration consequences, including deportation. Migration Policy Institute
Conclusion (My opinions)
So what are you supposed to think? Well I’m here to tell you, that no one can tell you that. I urge you to review the sources and their summaries above, and if you’re really interested follow the links and read the articles, there are many.
My own opinion here is that improvements to election security are, in my book, welcome. However they need to maintain voter accessibility for all US citizens. There is also an argument around non-citizens voting in our elections. This is already illegal, and barring some other change which makes it legal (to my knowledge this is not on the table), laws aimed at validating citizenship of a voter are also a good idea, assuming it does not prohibit a valid US citizen from voting, regardless of their standing in society.
It is worth noting, however, that there is currently no evidence that shows that noncitizen voters are having any meaningful impact on our elections. There are very few incidents of intentional voter fraud by noncitizens, and there are systems already in place to catch them. And those that are accidentally registered are audited and corrected. Claims that California (or other states) allow noncitizens to register to vote, are sometimes cited in ways that suggest that Liberal states want to allow noncitizens to vote in order to sway an election. The reality is that those exceptions are only for local elections.
For that matter, voter fraud in general is also not having a meaningful impact on our elections, the rhetoric around voter fraud is often overblown. As Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose put it, the hyperbole button gets pushed because it works, on both sides. So, should we improve election integrity? I think balanced improvements to validate legitimate voters can only be a good thing, as long as it is weighed against making it difficult, or expensive, for those valid citizens to be able to vote in an election that it is their right to vote in.
Note: The links and summaries of their content were generated with the help of Claude.ai. Source selection and all opinions are editorial decisions made by the author
