Identifying Election Fraud Using Orphan and Low Propensity Voters

• Author: Ray Christensen,Thomas J. Schultz
• Published date: 01 March 2014
• Date: 01 March 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X13498411
• Subject Matter: Articles

American Politics Research

2014, Vol. 42(2) 311 –337

© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X13498411

apr.sagepub.com

Article

Identifying Election

Fraud Using Orphan and

Low Propensity Voters

Ray Christensen1 and Thomas J. Schultz1

Abstract

Although voter ID laws have become a hot topic of political debate, existing

scholarship has failed to produce conclusive evidence concerning the

existence or frequency of electoral fraud, especially the type of fraud that

would be prevented by photo identification laws and signature verification

protocols for voting by mail. We propose a new method of measuring election

fraud, especially identity fraud, that is superior to previous measurement

efforts because it measures actual instances of fraud rather than waiting

for conclusive proof of fraud produced in a criminal prosecution. We test

our method in multiple jurisdictions, including two known cases of electoral

fraud, and we find no additional cases of fraud. We speculate that public

access to voting and registration records play an important role in preventing

this type of election fraud, suggesting that these practices are perhaps more

important than voter ID laws in preventing election fraud.

Keywords

voter ID, electoral fraud, identify fraud, electoral integrity, stealing elections

The Voter ID Debate

Thirty U.S. states now require some form of identification before voting, up

from 17 states that required identification in 2002 (National Conference of

State Legislatures [NCSL], 2012). Signature verification protocols are also

1Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ray Christensen, Brigham Young University, 775 SWKT, Provo, UT 84604, USA.

Email: ray_christensen@byu.edu

498411APR42210.1177/1532673X13498411American Politics ResearchChristensen and Schultz

research-article2013

312 American Politics Research 42(2)

increasing in popularity to prevent possible fraud in the increasing popular

alternative of voting by mail. These trends toward more robust identification

requirements have raised passionate arguments: supporters of ID require-

ments arguing that the rules are needed to combat electoral fraud and oppo-

nents arguing that the rules are thinly veiled efforts at voter suppression.

Courts, state legislatures, and the U.S. Department of Justice have all joined

the discussion with perhaps the most concise statement of the competing

issues coming from a Wisconsin state court. In striking down Wisconsin’s

voter ID law as contravening protections of the state constitution, it said

“voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression.

Indeed, they are two heads on the same monster.”1

Political and legal scholars have also addressed many of the issues sur-

rounding the use of voter ID laws to combat electoral fraud. For example,

they have found that the poor, the elderly, the young, minorities, and the less

educated are all less likely to have required forms of identification (Barreto,

Nuno, & Sanchez, 2009; Hood & Bullock, 2008; Levitt, 2012; Overton,

2007). Minorities are also more likely to be asked to produce identification

when voting (Ansolabehere, 2009; Atkeson, Bryant, Hall, Saunders, &

Alvarez, 2010; Cobb, Greiner, & Quinn, 2012). Scholars have found mixed

evidence or no evidence that voter ID laws affect turnout (de Alth, 2009;

Hershey, 2009; Mycoff, Wagner, & Wilson, 2009), deter people from voting

(Ansolabehere, 2009), or increase confidence about election integrity

(Ansolabehere & Persily, 2008). In addition, most legal scholars argue against

voter ID laws, pointing out the undue burden on voters (Montgomery, 2007;

Schultz, 2008), equating that burden to a poll tax (Brewer, 2007; Ellis, 2009),

noting the greater harm from vote suppression (Overton, 2007), or arguing

that ID laws disenfranchise political minorities (Ordway, 2007). In contrast,

the U.S. Supreme Court rejected similar challenges to the constitutionality of

Indiana’s voter ID law (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008).

Missing from this literature is definitive work on the extent to which voter

fraud occurs. On one hand, Minnite (2010) and Levitt (2007) find little evi-

dence to support claims that voter fraud is a widespread problem. In contrast,

no close election occurs without claims that electoral fraud is frequent and

consequential, and these claims come from both sides of the political spectrum

(Fitrakis, Rosenfeld, & Wasserman, 2006; Fund, 2008; Fund & von Spakovsky,

2012; Miller, 2008).

We add our voice to this existing scholarship, developing a more inclusive

method of measuring voter fraud, specifically the type of election fraud that

voter ID laws are intended to prevent. We then test this measurement method

in elections in three different jurisdictions, and with the exception of tests

against two known cases of electoral fraud, we find no additional cases of