Hard lessons to learn on Voter ID before the next election

A new report by the Electoral Commission raises significant concerns about the impact on the next general election of the new rules on voter ID. Under legislation passed in 2022, voters in mainland Britain are now required to show photographic ID at polling stations, and when registering for a postal vote. According to the commission’s survey of how officials dealt with the new rules at May’s local elections in England, significant improvements need to be made in voter awareness, and in resources available to returning officers, for the system to work better in the more intense atmosphere of a general election where turnout is typically twice as high. (Voter ID is already well established in Northern Ireland, where historically electoral fraud has been more widespread.)

The commission recommends expanding the list of accepted IDs, providing options for those without ID such as being vouched for by another voter, and raising awareness of the support available for disabled voters.

What’s wrong with the system?

The commission says its work confirms earlier interim findings after the May elections in England: most who wanted to vote were able to do so, but some groups struggled to meet the ID requirement. It says this stemmed from two overlapping issues: variations in levels of ownership of accepted ID (such as passports), and awareness of the new requirement. In particular, there seems to be scant use of the new Voter Authority Certificate, which is free photo ID for those without a passport or driving licence. Only 25,000 were used in May, for example. Voters who didn’t have the right ID tended to be poorer and from ethnic minorities. Given that municipal elections have lower turnouts anyway, the real impact on a national election is yet to be seen, and the commission has concerns.

How big is the problem?

It’s hard to be precise, but the commission has some estimates. The most visible manifestation of the problem is voters turning up to polling stations without adequate identification. (They are turned away; some, but not all, return.) “At least 0.25 per cent of people who tried to vote at a polling station in May 2023 were not able to because of the voter ID requirement – this was equivalent to approximately 14,000 people who were not issued with a ballot paper,” the commission says.

That is a relatively small figure, but regrettable because everyone has a right and civic duty to vote and the scale of fraud was always far less than those sorts of numbers. Frauds were also almost entirely confined to local, not general, elections and typically involved postal voting rather than ‘‘impersonation’’ at the polling station.

However, the much bigger problem is also far less visible: those who decide not to bother voting simply because the necessary photo ID isn’t readily to hand. The commission’s survey evidence indicates that “around four per cent of all people who said they did not vote at the elections on 4 May listed the ID requirement as the reason… three per cent blamed not having the necessary ID, and one per cent said they disagreed with the new requirement”.

Democracy Volunteers, a group of election observers, found that more than one per cent of voters were turned away from polling stations because of ID requirements at the local elections – half of whom appeared to be from minority ethnic backgrounds.

The emergence of a new phenomenon – ‘‘election greeters’’ on the street outside some polling stations – will also have turned voters away before they had a chance to record an unsuccessful attempt.

In any case, compulsory photo ID does suppress and distort the vote, and by more than fraud ever did. If maximising participation and maintaining confidence in parliamentary democracy is the aim, voter ID has failed.

What is the electoral impact?

It hits the poor and ethnic minorities hardest, and some commentators say that it therefore tended to hurt Labour and help the Conservatives. However, even if that were so, it is not quite absolute, because Labour doesn’t “own” 100 per cent of the votes of the poor or of all undifferentiated ethnic minorities in any case – so it’s a relative effect.

In addition, it depends on how the poor and ethnic minorities were going to vote. At the 2019 general election, the Conservatives did markedly better than normal and better than the opposition in harvesting support among older and less well-off sections of society. For this reason, the former cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg declared at the National Conservatives conference earlier this year: “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as, dare I say, we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they, by and large, voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.”

But wasn’t it a Conservative election manifesto commitment?

Not exactly. The 2019 document ‘‘Get Brexit Done Release Britain’s Potential’’ merely promised: “We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.” So, yes to proof of identity, but no mention of passports or photo ID. In any case, adjusting a safe and secure democratic franchise is best done by cross-party consensus.

Would Labour reverse it?

They have not explicitly promised to, but it is heavily implied. Florence Eshalomi, shadow minister for democracy, has commented: “It is wrong that the Conservatives have snatched the ability of legitimate voters to have a say in their services and society… ministers are required to hold a comprehensive review into this discredited policy and there must be no more dither and delay.”