I VotedHouse Republicans are urging passage of a bill to require every Minnesotan to have a government-issued photo identification in order to vote in the state. The bill (HF 57) introduced by Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, would make Minnesota’s voting laws among the most restrictive in the nation.

“Some people have mistakenly decided that this is a partisan issue,” said Emmer at a press conference last week. That perception may come from the fact that the bill has exclusively one-party backing. Twenty-five Republicans have signed on, but the bill has received zero support from DFLers.

Emmer says that “twenty-four other states require photo ID” — but that’s misleading. Four states require photo IDs, but also allow voters without one to sign a sworn affidavit in order to cast a regular ballot. Eighteen states require some form of identification for voters, but do not require a photo ID. Two states, Kansas and Pennsylvania, require first-time voters to present identification, but in neither state is it required that that ID have a photo on it. In 23 states, including Minnesota, voters who register by mail and do not include ID with registration must show some form of identification at the polling place. The form of ID varies by state but none of these states requires a photo ID for either registration or voting.

If this bill passes, Minnesota would have the most restrictive voter requirements in the country, along with Georgia, Florida and Indiana, the only other states that require a photo ID in order to cast a regular ballot.

DFLers contend that more restrictive voting requirements will lead to lower voter turnout among the estimated 135,000 eligible voters in Minnesota who do not have government-sponsored photo identification, but there is conflicting research on that assertion.

A Rutgers University study in 2006 analyzed state-by-state data and found that low-education and low-income people tend to vote at lower rates when IDs are required:

Voters in states that required photo identification were 2.9 percent less likely to vote than voters in states where individuals had to give their names. In terms of the minimum requirement, voters in states that required an affidavit at minimum were 4 percent less likely to turn out than voters in states where they had to give their names.

The differences were more pronounced for those lower in education. Constraining the model to show predicted probabilities only for those with less than a high school diploma, the probability of voting was 5.1 percent lower in states that required photo identification as the maximum requirement and 7 percent lower in states that required an affidavit as the minimum requirement compared to states where stating one’s name was the maximum or minimum requirement. (Protecting the franchise, or restricting it? The effects of voter identification requirements on turnout. Timothy Vercellotti and David Anderson)

Research by the California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2007 yielded similar results; additionally, their studies found that race and ethnicity did not play a factor.

First, we see that there is evidence to support the claim that the most restrictive forms of voter identification requirements do lead to lower levels of participation by registered voters. However, we find no evidence to support the hypothesis that this effect is more profound for nonwhite registered voters, controlling for other variables, especially income and education. Yet we find that these other socioeconomic status variables, especially education and income, do show a significant interactive effect with stricter identification requirements. In particular, we find that registered voters with low levels of educational attainment or lower levels of income are less likely to vote, the more restrictive the voter identification regime. (The Effect of Voter Identification Laws on Turnout. R. Michael Alvarez, Delia Bailey, and Jonathan Katz)

But other studies have not shown the same result. One study of Indiana’s photo ID law, on which Emmer says Minnesota’s proposed law is modeled, showed little difference in turnout rates.

“Previous studies have examined the effects of voter ID laws more generally, but none of these separately analyzes the effects of so called ‘mandatory photo ID’ on turnout in Indiana,” said Jeffrey Milyo, professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri. “I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

Former Secretary of State and current state Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer has been a leading voice in requiring photo IDs in order to vote. She proposed the idea in 2002 and she has been a vocal supporter of Emmer’s bill.

Interestingly, during her stint as SOS she was frequently accused of voter suppression when courts twice overruled her decision to exclude some college students and Native Americans from voting.

“When you increase public confidence, you increase voter turnout,” Kiffmeyer said.

Progressive groups are coming out against the bill. Take Action Minnesota fielded voting-related complaints during Election Day 2008. Of the 1,200 complaints they received, the majority were from people confused by the process of registering to vote, not people reporting voter fraud.

“Democracy is strengthened when citizens are empowered to participate,” said Take Action Minnesota’s Dan McGrath. “There are countless older voters, no longer able to drive, who don’t have drivers’ licenses. There are thousands of eligible voters in our state without government-issued IDs. Minnesota should continue to look for ways to remove barriers to voting, not make it harder for its citizens to vote.”