Legal Challenges To Voter ID Laws

Although state laws vary, many states require voters to present some form of photo identification before they cast their ballot. Supporters of voter ID laws argue these requirements help prevent voter fraud and ensure election integrity. Critics contend that such laws disproportionately affect certain populations and may suppress legitimate votes.

Over the years, several high-profile cases have challenged voter ID laws in state and federal courts. In this article, we will discuss some of these legal challenges and explain how voter ID lawsuits work. If you believe someone has violated your rights, a local civil rights attorney can help you understand how state laws apply to your situation and walk you through your options.

What Are Voter ID Laws?

Voter ID laws generally refer to state rules that require voters to show or provide certain identification, most commonly when voting in person. Some states also require additional identification when you register to vote, or when requesting or returning an absentee ballot. The types of IDs states accept vary, but state law will describe the type of identification you must present to vote in a state election.

In the states that require ID, the following types of identification typically suffice:

• Driver’s license
• Utility bills
• Bank statements
• Paychecks
• A government-issued ID showing your name and address (e.g., a passport)

Some states specifically require a photo ID. To obtain acceptable photo identification, a person must provide proof of identity, such as a birth certificate or Social Security card, and proof of address. Usually, you can prove your address by providing a copy of a utility bill or a recent bank statement.

Remember, you will likely need some form of ID for voter registration. Check your state’s voter ID requirements before registering to vote. This is especially important as the next election draws near. If you wait until the last minute to register and find out that you don’t have sufficient ID, you may lose your opportunity to vote.

How Common Are Voter ID Laws?

Thirty-three states require voters to present ID before they cast their ballot on Election Day. Of those, 21 require a photo ID.

Some of the states that still require voters to present photo identification include:

• Georgia
• Indiana
• Michigan
• North Carolina
• Wisconsin

Other states, such as those listed below, require that you present an ID, but do not require that it be a photo ID:

• Arizona
• Colorado
• Iowa

Some states, like New York and Minnesota, don’t require any ID to cast your vote. However, you might need one at the polling place if you choose same-day registration.

Some states have special requirements for first-time voters. For example, some states may require new voters to produce more identification to exercise their right to vote. These laws change frequently, so it’s important to check your state’s election rules.

Legal Basis for Voter ID Lawsuits

Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (known as the elections clause) gives states the primary authority to regulate the “times, places and manner” of holding elections. This means states have considerable power to set rules about how elections are conducted, including voter identification requirements.

However, states must still comply with other constitutional provisions, including the equal protection clause and constitutional protections for voting rights. When states enact voting laws that allegedly violate these constitutional protections, voters can challenge those laws in court.

Equal Protection Under the Fourteenth Amendment

There is ample case law showing that the United States Constitution protects voting rights. The most common legal challenge to voter ID laws is that they violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The equal protection clause provides that states cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This means that states generally must* *treat similarly situated people alike. The equal protection clause can be violated by discriminatory voting rules, including those that disenfranchise voters based on race, national origin, or sex.

Some people have argued that voter ID laws discriminate against members of these protected classes, thereby making it difficult for them to vote. In a challenge to voter ID laws, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged governmental action puts an undue burden on their ability to vote.

Courts evaluate challenges to voting regulations using a balancing test developed in cases such as Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) and Burdick v. Takushi (1992). Under this framework, courts weigh the burden a law places on voters against the state’s justifications for the law. The more severe the burden, the stronger the state’s interest must be to justify the restriction.

• If the burden is severe, the law must be narrowly drawn to advance a compelling state interest.
• If the burden is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, the state’s important regulatory interests will generally be enough to justify the restriction.

Most cases fall in between. Courts then balance the character and magnitude of the burden against the state’s interests. For example, in Crawford v. Marion County (2008), the Supreme Court upheld Indiana‘s voter ID law under this framework, finding the burdens were not severe enough to outweigh the state’s interests in preventing fraud and maintaining public confidence.

Challenges Under the Voting Rights Act

Not all challenges to voter ID laws are based on the Constitution. Some of these claims are rooted in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under this law, it is illegal to engage in voting practices that discriminate against U.S. citizens.

One of the main reasons President Lyndon Johnson passed this law in August of 1965 was to help put an end to voter suppression in African American communities. In the years following the Civil War, many of the Southern States passed voting laws that allegedly discriminated against African Americans.

An example of the discriminatory behavior that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the literacy tests many Southerners had to pass to vote. These laws were allegedly targeted at African American voters who would have a more difficult time passing the literacy tests. As a result, lawmakers were able to limit this group’s participation in the voting process.

Not only did these laws discriminate against large groups of people, but they also negatively impacted election integrity. Democrats and Republicans could use this type of voting law to limit voting participation by those constituents who were less likely to support their electoral candidate.

Shelby County v. Holder

The Supreme Court‘s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder fundamentally changed how voter ID laws could be challenged, making it significantly harder to block discriminatory voting laws before they take effect.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), certain states, as identified by the former Section 4(b) coverage formula, generally could not implement specified voting changes unless they first obtained federal “preclearance,” meaning approval showing the change had neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect.

States were selected for preclearance based on their history of discriminatory voting practices. The formula identified jurisdictions that had used voting tests or devices and had low voter registration or turnout in past elections — indicators of historical discrimination.

Essentially, covered jurisdictions had to obtain federal preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before certain voting changes could take effect.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that Section 4(b), the VRA’s coverage formula for determining which jurisdictions were subject to Section 5 preclearance, was unconstitutional. The justices indicated that federal preclearance (the act of proving a potential new voting law would not harm minority voters) was based on outdated voting conditions.

As a result, the Supreme Court struck down the Section 4(b) coverage formula. Going forward, previously covered jurisdictions could implement voting laws without first obtaining federal approval, as the preclearance requirement was no longer enforceable.

Examples of State Voter ID Lawsuits

Below, we examine recent legal challenges to voter ID laws in select states, including Texas, North Dakota, and North Carolina. Lawmakers in these states purportedly passed these laws to prevent voter fraud. However, as you will see, people have challenged these laws as being discriminatory.

Texas Photo ID Requirement

Texas lawmakers passed a strict photo ID law in 2011. It required voters to show one of the following to election officials at their polling place:

• A state driver’s license or a valid photo ID card
• A concealed handgun license
• A U.S. passport
• A military ID card
• A U.S. citizenship certificate with a photo

The law, known as Senate Bill 14, took effect in 2013. In 2014, a federal district court struck down the law, finding it violated the Voting Rights Act. After appeals and further proceedings, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that SB 14 had a discriminatory effect on Black and Hispanic voters, who were less likely to possess the required forms of identification. Experts testified that over 600,000 Texans lacked the required identification.

The Texas legislature passed a revised version of the law, known as Senate Bill 5, in 2017. This law permitted voters without an approved photo ID to vote by signing a declaration explaining their reasonable impediment to obtaining one and presenting an alternative form of identification, such as a utility bill or bank statement.

In 2018, federal courts upheld the revised law, finding that it adequately remedied the constitutional violations found in the original statute.

North Dakota Residential Address Requirement

North Dakota amended its voter ID law in 2017 to require that voters provide identification that had a current residential address. The law stated that a P.O. box did not qualify as a residential address. This raised several issues, such as:

• In some places, roads had multiple names.
• In other instances, the state had assigned multiple numbers to homes.
• State and county governments never assigned residential addresses on Native reservations.
• In some places, the government assigned addresses but didn’t communicate the assignment.

This lack of address uniformity led to the rejection of some voters’ absentee ballot applications for invalid addresses.

Six plaintiffs challenged the law in Brakebill v. Jaeger, arguing that it excluded thousands of Native Americans who lived on reservations. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the law imposed “excessively burdensome requirements” on Native American voters. It issued a preliminary injunction, a court order that temporarily blocks the enforcement of a law.

Preliminary injunctions require a court to decide whether a party is *likely *to win their case, and there’s some kind of damage that they will suffer if an injunction isn’t issued while the litigation plays out. This is different from a final decision “on the merits,” where the court decides which side *actually *wins. The opposing party can also appeal an injunction, usually by requesting a “stay” from a higher court.

In October 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the North Dakota Secretary of State’s request for a stay of the residential street address portion of the injunction. The plaintiffs sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court declined to intervene. This allowed those requirements to take effect for the 2018 election.

In 2019, the Eighth Circuit issued a more detailed ruling on the merits of the case. The appeals judges found that, while the law might have created difficulties for a small percentage of voters, the plaintiffs had not proven that it placed a substantial burden on most voters in North Dakota. The court found this was not enough to justify striking down the law for the entire state.

In 2020, the plaintiffs and the state of North Dakota reached a settlement in their lawsuit. The settlement allows Native American tribes to issue ID cards with residential addresses that comply with the voter ID law.

North Carolina Photo ID Requirement

In 2013, the North Carolina legislature passed a statute requiring voters to present certain types of photo identification cards to poll workers. The acceptable identifications included the following:

• State driver’s license
• State-issued ID
• Military ID
• Passport

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the statute in 2016 for being racially discriminatory, saying it targeted Black voters “with almost surgical precision.”

In 2018, North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring photo identification for in-person voting. Following the amendment’s passage, the state General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 824 to implement the new constitutional requirement. The law eliminated many previously acceptable forms of identification, including most employer and student IDs.

Civil rights groups challenged SB 824 in both state and federal courts. In state court proceedings, a three-judge trial court panel issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect in 2020. In September 2021, the same panel ruled that SB 824 violated the North Carolina Constitution, finding that the legislature enacted it with racially discriminatory intent.

However, in March 2026, a federal court upheld SB 824 against challenges under federal law. U.S. District Judge Loretta Copeland Biggs acknowledged that “it is simply much more difficult for racial minorities to vote and to have their vote counted” under the law. However, she concluded that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent — particularly the 2021 decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee — prevented her from finding unconstitutional discrimination.

Judge Biggs found that while the North Carolina law creates “distinct and difficult burdens” for individuals without a photo ID, it does not do so on a large enough scale to meet the current legal standard.

Under current North Carolina law, voters are asked to show photo ID when casting a ballot. Acceptable forms of identification include a driver’s license, passport, military ID, tribal enrollment card, or a free voter photo ID card issued by the county board of elections.

Voters who do not have an acceptable photo ID can still vote by completing an ID Exception Form. This form allows voters to explain why they cannot provide photo identification, such as a reasonable impediment or religious objection. Voters who cast absentee ballots may also use the exception form if they cannot provide a copy of their photo ID.

Wisconsin Voter ID Law

Wisconsin’s voter ID law, which passed in 2011, required voters to present one of the following forms of identification before voting:

• Wisconsin state driver’s license
• State ID
• Passport
• Military ID
• Naturalization papers
• Tribal ID

Election officials could also accept a student ID card with a signature and a two-year expiration date. Wisconsin also provides free photo IDs to eligible voters who lack the underlying documents needed to obtain one. The law allows voters without acceptable photo ID to mark a provisional ballot that is set aside, which will be counted if the voter presents valid identification by 4 p.m. on the Friday after the election.

One estimate suggested that about 300,000 eligible voters lacked proper identification during the 2016 presidential election. Another estimate suggested approximately 17,000 registered voters could not vote due to the law in 2016.

The voter ID law has been challenged multiple times in federal court. In July 2016, a federal judge ruled that Wisconsin’s voter ID law was unconstitutional and ordered the state to provide an alternative to showing ID, such as an affidavit option.

In August 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed that ruling, allowing the state to implement the law for the 2016 election. The Court held that the law could be constitutional so long as the state provided temporary free IDs to those in need and publicized the ID requirement.

In 2020, the Seventh Circuit addressed multiple challenges to Wisconsin’s election laws in Luft v. Evers. Regarding the voter ID requirement, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not proven that legislators enacted the law with racially discriminatory intent. The court acknowledged that the law had a disparate impact on Black voters, but found that the record showed the legislature was motivated by partisan political considerations rather than race. Under Supreme Court precedent, knowledge of a racially disparate effect is not enough to prove unconstitutional discrimination. Plaintiffs must prove the legislature acted “because of” race, not merely “in spite of” such effects.

The court also addressed Wisconsin’s treatment of student IDs. It held that Wisconsin could require student IDs to be current (unexpired). However, it found the additional requirement that students must also provide proof of current enrollment to be unconstitutional. This treated students differently from other voters without adequate justification.

What To Do If Your ID or Voter Registration Is Questioned

If poll workers question your ID or say you’re not on the voter registration list, don’t leave without voting. Federal law generally guarantees your right to cast a provisional ballot in an election for federal office if you state that you are a registered voter in that jurisdiction, and eligible to vote, but your name does not appear on the voter rolls, or your eligibility is challenged.

A provisional ballot is a regular ballot that is placed in a sealed envelope and set aside until election officials can verify your eligibility. After casting a provisional ballot, you’ll typically receive information about how to check whether your ballot was counted and what steps you may need to take (such as providing identification within a certain timeframe).

If poll workers refuse to provide you with a provisional ballot, ask to speak with a supervisor or contact your local election protection hotline for immediate assistance. Document what happened, including the names of any poll workers involved and the exact reason given for questioning your eligibility.

When To Contact an Attorney

You may want to contact a civil rights attorney if:

• You were turned away from voting and not offered a provisional ballot
• You believe you were targeted for ID challenges because of your race, ethnicity, age, or other protected characteristic
• Poll workers applied ID requirements inconsistently or more strictly to certain voters
• You encountered systematic problems affecting many voters at your polling place
• Your provisional ballot was rejected, and you believe the rejection was improper
• You want to challenge a voter ID law that you believe violates your constitutional rights

An attorney can help you understand whether your rights were violated and explain your options, which may include filing a complaint with election officials, pursuing a lawsuit, or joining a class action challenge to voting laws.