Voter ID Makes Sense. Until You Ask What It Actually Fixes.

During episode #2526 of The Joe Rogan Experience, Joe Rogan and JD Vance discussed voter ID laws. Their argument was very simple (as most things on that podcast tend to be): if we want fair elections, why not require people to show identification before voting?

And you know what? I kind of get it.

As a data analyst, I am a fan of standardizing processes. I’ve experienced how much easier it is to understand what’s happening when everyone follows the same procedures. It makes comparing results, identifying problems, and figuring out what actually works much easier.

But the simplicity of this argument bothers me way too much not to talk about.

Just because an idea makes sense in your head doesn’t mean it actually fixes anything.

So, let’s dig into what is going on here.

First, do we even disagree?

At a glance, it might not seem like Democrats and Republicans want the same thing.

According to a 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats support requiring government-issued photo ID to vote.

That’s a significant level of agreement in a country that’s been so divided for so long.

But here’s where the analyst brain kicks in. What problems are we actually trying to solve? How often do they happen? And lastly, does the proposed solution help anyone or anything?

So, what does the research say?

Back in 2012, News21 investigated 2,068 alleged cases of election fraud and found just 10 cases of in-person voter impersonation. This is important because this is the type of fraud that requiring an ID is supposed to prevent.

Even the conservative Heritage Foundation's own database, which is frequently brought up in arguments about election integrity, documented 1,071 cases over 47 states in its 2017 report. That number covered different types of misconduct, across 47 different states and multiple years. Registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, and other offenses aren't necessarily prevented by asking someone to show an ID at a polling station.

And then there's a 2021 study by Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons that looked at strict voter ID laws using a nationwide voter panel.

Their findings? They couldn't identify a statistically significant effect on actual or perceived election fraud.

Interestingly, they also didn't find a significant reduction in overall turnout or turnout among racial groups.

The second finding complicates one of the common counterarguments. But that’s kind of the point of looking at these analyses. We’re here to solve a problem, not collect citations that agree with us.

Not finding a significant effect doesn’t prove these laws couldn’t make a difference. But it does raise a fair question about the evidence being used as justification.

This seems complicated. Leon, what are you getting at?

Basically, most Americans seem to think voter ID is a reasonable proposition. But the specific kind of fraud that these laws would be targeting appears to be very rare. We also don't have clear evidence that stricter requirements reduce it.

This doesn’t automatically rule out voter ID. It just means that we need a better answer to “How do we reduce voter fraud?” before spending taxpayer money changing the laws. Especially when these laws would determine who gets to vote.

Okay… But who doesn’t have an ID?

This is something that gets brushed aside way too easily. It’s natural to wonder why someone wouldn’t have identification when getting one has never been particularly difficult for you.

Hell, I didn’t even realize how much of a hassle it could be until I moved states and had to provide two proofs of residency just to update my ID. Not to mention the universally beloved experience of dealing with the DMV.

Now imagine having to deal with this when you don’t have a car, can’t easily take time off work, or don’t have a stable address.

According to a 2024 University of Maryland-led study, nearly 2.6 million voting-age American citizens lack any government-issued photo ID.

And the barriers to obtaining identification aren't evenly distributed. Income, race, age, and access to transportation can all play a role.

This is where the conversation starts feeling a lot less innocent.

I’m not going to make an argument here that requiring ID is inherently racist or classist. That would probably require a few more pages of writing. But I will argue that it is ludicrous to suggest that everyone has the same access and resources, or faces the same obstacles, just because laws are written the same way for everyone.

Let’s also not forget how the conversation often drifts toward the vague assumption that undocumented immigrants are responsible for illegal voting. We already have a long history of racism, classism, and xenophobia. Let’s not let it cloud how we shape laws and policies, and let’s not give those narratives a free pass just because we wrap them in the language of “election security.”

So what would I actually support?

For starters, I think standardization is a great idea.

I want to see more consistent election procedures, better reporting of rejected ballots, transparent audits, and, most importantly, accessible ID services. We need to treat the subject of election fraud as a process with different potential vulnerabilities.

I also would not be opposed to reasonable identification requirements if obtaining an ID is genuinely accessible to all, free of meaningful barriers, and accompanied by government-supported alternatives for people who cannot produce it.

I think we can have secure elections without making participation unnecessarily difficult, and I don’t think those goals should be in conflict.

What I will never buy is that something deserves to become law simply because it sounds like “common sense” on a podcast.