OP-ED: Election integrity is not voter suppression
Gary Stout’s recent op-ed condemning the SAVE America Act begins with a conclusion and then works backward. He states that President Trump is “authoritarian” and “blatantly corrupt,” that Republicans fear a coming “blue wave,” and that the “central tenet” of Republican election policy is preventing minorities and Democrats from voting.
These are serious accusations. What is missing is serious evidence.
Stout treats voter identification, citizenship verification, early-voting rules and voter-roll maintenance as interchangeable parts of a national conspiracy. They are not. Each addresses a different aspect of election administration, and none is inherently voter suppression.
Citizenship is the foundation of our electoral system. Only American citizens may vote in federal elections. If government fails to verify citizenship reasonably, it becomes complicit in sustaining a fundamental weakness in the voting system.
The SAVE America Act would require documentary proof of citizenship when registering for federal elections and photo identification when voting. An ordinary driver’s license generally proves identity and lawful presence, but not necessarily citizenship. The act therefore permits numerous forms of citizenship verification: a passport; qualifying identification indicating citizenship; certain military records; government photo identification showing a U.S. birthplace; or photo identification accompanied by a birth certificate, naturalization certificate or other citizenship record.
The act also requires states to establish an alternative process for citizens unable to produce the listed documents. It accommodates married voters and others whose current names differ from their citizenship records. It preserves provisional voting and provides for the ballot to be counted after citizenship is verified.
That is considerably different from Stout’s portrayal of citizens being stripped of their votes because they cannot find a birth certificate.
Reasonable people can debate whether every provision is necessary or whether implementation could be improved. But requiring people to establish the defining qualification for voting — citizenship — is not an attack on democracy. It is a fundamental defense of the voting rights of every American citizen.
Stout also repeats the familiar assertion that voter-identification laws suppress minority turnout. The strongest nationwide evidence does not support that sweeping claim.
A 2021 study published in the respected Quarterly Journal of Economics examined approximately 1.6 billion individual voter observations between 2008 and 2018. It found no statistically significant reduction in registration or turnout under strict voter-ID laws and no negative effect among voters grouped by race, age, sex or political party. Its estimated effect on overall turnout was one-tenth of one percentage point — essentially zero.
Other research has found small declines in particular states and elections. But the evidence does not support claims of widespread, systematic minority disenfranchisement.
The nationwide study found that campaign contact with nonwhite voters increased after voter-ID laws were enacted. Suppression advocates cite that as though it were troubling. It is called campaigning.
Democrats contacted voters they feared losing. Republicans also increased their outreach to Black and Hispanic communities. Parties are supposed to locate eligible voters, explain the rules, help them participate and persuade them to vote. Elections should be won by finding and persuading voters, not by declaring any verification requirement illegitimate.
The American people understand that distinction. A 2024 Gallup survey found that 84% of Americans supported photo identification at the polls and 83% supported proof of citizenship for first-time registration. Both policies received majority support among Democrats. White and nonwhite respondents expressed similar levels of support for voter identification.
Pennsylvanians routinely produce identification — and sometimes permit it to be electronically scanned — to buy alcohol, board an airplane, cash a check or conduct countless other transactions. Yet requiring identification for the uniquely consequential act of voting is described as an intolerable burden.
Stout is equally dismissive of maintaining accurate voter rolls. He acknowledges that government databases contain errors but then condemns efforts to correct them.
Federal law already requires states to maintain accurate registration lists through uniform and nondiscriminatory procedures. Investigators have found rolls burdened with deceased registrants, people who have moved outside the jurisdiction, duplicate or conflicting registrations, obsolete addresses and records associated with people who were never eligible to register.
Not every inaccurate registration represents an illegal vote. That is not the point. A registration system containing large numbers of people no longer eligible at their registered addresses is not functioning properly. Such records create administrative confusion, distort turnout calculations, cause election mail to be sent to obsolete addresses and provide opportunities for misuse.
Cleaning those records through established procedures, notice and an opportunity to correct errors is not voter suppression. It is ordinary administrative competence. An eligible voter whose registration is questioned may still establish eligibility and cast a provisional ballot.
Stout also accuses Republicans of deliberately creating long lines in Democratic precincts and designing election laws to keep minorities from voting. If particular officials intentionally deny voting resources to selected neighborhoods, that should be investigated and corrected. But alleging a decades-long national Republican conspiracy requires more than asserting that one exists.
A controversial North Carolina law was struck down after a federal court examined that law, its history and the evidence surrounding its enactment. That particular case does not establish the motive or effect of every voter-identification law in every state. One proven instance cannot substitute for evidence concerning an entirely different law.
Trump contributed to the controversy by saying passage of the SAVE America Act would “guarantee the midterms.” That was careless political rhetoric. Republicans are no more entitled to have an election “guaranteed” than Democrats are. But a politician’s boast does not prove that the legislation will suppress eligible voters, much less that racial suppression is its purpose.
Stout’s references to authoritarianism, corruption and an anticipated Democratic landslide are political opinions presented as facts. They tell us considerably more about the author’s view of Trump than about election administration.
Election integrity is not voter suppression. Every inconvenience is not suppression. Every database correction is not a “purge.” Every safeguard opposed by Democratic activists is not an attack on minority voters.
The proper question is whether election rules reasonably verify eligibility while protecting every eligible citizen’s opportunity to vote. Stout never seriously addresses that question. He substitutes partisan accusation for evidence.
Dave Ball is former chairman of the Washington County Republican Party.