Voter ID is a dangerous, wasteful policy that will stifle the voice of black voters on Brexit

The proposals to introduce a requirement for voters to bring ID to polling stations is nothing less than a suppression of ethnic minority voters. Perhaps that is because this government is well aware that many voters from ethnic minority groups realise the harm that Brexit will inflict on our communities.

Let me be clear: there is no need for this legislation, which will cost up to £20m per election.

The number of cases of attempted voter fraud in the UK is vanishingly small. The Electoral Commission states that between 2017 and 2018 there were two convictions and 10 cautions for this crime. In their own words, there is “no evidence of large scale electoral fraud”.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, this policy may well break some sort of record for how inefficient it would be. In the past it has been compared to using a sledgehammer to crack open a walnut, but the proportions of the proposed spend are closer to a bulldozer crushing a grain of wheat. But if the problem doesn’t exist, what is this law supposed to achieve? In order to answer this question, we have to look at its effects and whom it will impact.

Priti Patel is branding the Conservative Party as the party of “law and order”, and in that context a policy which seems to prevent a type of crime that theoretically threatens our democratic process makes a lot of political sense. Even if the problem doesn’t exist, it looks good be addressing it preemptively, as least as far as Tory voters are concerned.

But, of course, it will have other effects, too – and this is where the evidence is more damning. During the local elections in May this year, a trial scheme for voter ID was carried. Of the 1,968 people who were turned away for not carrying identification to their polling station, 740 didn’t come back. That’s well over a third. This is shocking enough, but add in the fact that black and ethnic minority voters are less likely to possess the required ID in the first place, and it's clear this policy would affect that community disproportionately.

To see the results of such a policy at a larger scale, turn to America. After strict voter ID laws were introduced in Wisconsin, the state's biggest city, Milwaukee, saw the lowest voter turnout in 20 years; Milwaukee is home to 70 per cent of the state's African American population. It is estimated that the laws impacted 300,000 Milwaukee voters. Donald Trump won that state by just 27,000 votes.

Much energy has already been spent examining what effect the policy might have on the results of a general election here in the UK, but what about the impact in the event of the Final Say referendum on Brexit?

In 2017, 77 per cent of ethnic minority votes went to the Labour party, which explicitly opposed a no-deal Brexit. When surveyed, 52 per cent of ethnic minority voters said they thought a no-deal Brexit would worsen race relations in Britain, and 53 per cent said leaving the EU without a deal would free people to make more negative comments about immigration in public.

Is it a coincidence that one of the key demographics hardest by voter ID proposals aligns with a demographic that strongly opposes Brexit?

The evidence is clear. The UK Household Longitudinal Study suggests that 71 per cent of ethnic minorities supported Remain, and a poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft showed that only 27 per cent of black and 33 per cent of mixed race people who voted in the referendum voted for Brexit. Given that support among ethnic minorities for Brexit is very low, policies which introduce barriers to them exercising their democratic right would seem to be designed to artificially swing a referendum in favour of Leave, from a government which seems determined to deny these voters the Final Say anyway.

The government’s Voter ID proposals cannot be allowed to pass into law – not just because it is an unnecessary waste of money (and it is), but because it will affect some citizens more than others and that is simply undemocratic. Ethnic minorities will not continue to be politically ignored, especially when it comes to a Final Say – which this policy might hint is on the threshold of being delivered.