Photographic voter ID isn’t protecting democracy – it’s undermining it

Editorial: It will mean that future governments and local councils can take even less notice of the needs of the young, the poor and some ethnic minorities

Electoral Commission data in 2019 showed that 25 per cent of Black and Asian Britons were not registered to vote (PA)

By far the most depressing aspect of the introduction of compulsory photographic ID as a voting requirement is the disproportionate impact it has on British people of Black and minority ethnic heritage.

This racially charged aspect of the Elections Act 2022 will make itself felt for the first time in the English local elections. For the first time in British history, a section of the community could, in effect, be made second-class citizens in their democratic rights because of their racial background. It is indefensible.

Electoral Commission data in 2019 showed that 25 per cent of Black and Asian Britons were not registered to vote, compared to the national average of 17 per cent. The pro-democracy Runnymede Trust points out also that voter IDs were likely to have a heavier impact on Black and minority ethnic people: white people are most likely to hold one form of photo ID, with 76 per cent holding a full driving licence.

But 38 per cent of Asian people, nearly a third of people of mixed ethnicity (31 per cent) and more than half of Black people (48 per cent) do not, according to 2021 data. Because the poor of all ages and students in particular are less likely to hold the type of photographic identity documents now demanded, their already low propensity to take part in the democratic process will be even further depressed.

In practical terms, a substantial minority of the British population will be deprived of its democratic rights, and unfairly discriminated against. Engagement in free and fair elections will be lower than it otherwise would be. Disenchantment and alienation will be higher.

The hassle will simply be too much for many, compared to turning up at a polling station and declaring your name and address. It will be difficult to measure that effect, but it is real and important.

Even if the new rules only rob a few thousand people of their ability to determine who they are ruled by, the detriment is clear. The numbers may be far greater than that, however. The damage to democracy caused by compulsory voter ID will be far greater than any benefits it brings.

As is well known, Britain has long enjoyed remarkably clean elections, with tiny amounts of fraud and even smaller instances of personation, especially for parliamentary contests. Indeed, the more notorious cases of attempted election fraud have occurred in local elections and involved rigging postal votes, rather than personation.

It is perfectly fair to claim that the traditional British system at polling stations was open to abuse, but such abuses were vanishingly rare. Only in Northern Ireland, where the jokey motto was “vote early, vote often”, was corruption an issue, and photo ID an essential element in preserving the integrity of elections.

In the province, the photo ID requirement to increase trust in the system – which had also suffered from gerrymandering and suspicion of rigging for decades – was a price worth paying for shoring up a precarious faith in democracy. In other countries, the balance might also be tipped in favour of more stringent voting requirements and qualifications.

In Britain, with its different traditions, it is not. Of the 1,386 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2018 and 2022, nine led to convictions, and the police issued six cautions. Most cases either resulted in the police taking no further action or were locally resolved by the police issuing advice.

Photo ID is actually having the effect of devaluing the legitimacy of British elections. The measure was proposed and pursued by successive Conservative governments and has never enjoyed a cross-party appeal.

Amendments in the House of Lords to tweak the bill so that it would command wider respect and support were summarily rejected by Boris Johnson, a man whose aversion to constitutional propriety is well known. It was, quite simply, an exercise in rewriting the electoral rulebook to secure a marginal – but in places valuable – electoral advantage for Conservative candidates. This is for the simple reason that Conservative-inclined voters are more likely to have ready access to the necessary documents.

The cosmetic attempt to get people to apply for special voter ID has been just that – tokenistic. Of the 2 million or so (now former) electors who needed a new document, only 63,279 have received it. Even if the great majority of the now disenfranchised 2 million had little inclination to vote, or even actively despised the idea, the point is that they should have the right to do so, and the ability to do so with minimal hindrance. It is a sobering fact that as many as 2 million British citizens will no longer have a say in who their local councillor, police commissioner or MP shall be.

A much more moderate tightening up of the rules would have sufficed to deter the minuscule incidence of in-person vote theft. Voters could have been asked to bring along their polling card (which many do voluntarily), or a wider range of everyday non-photographic ID, such as a debit card. A passport, driving licence or the like always was overkill, and in fact photo ID as such wasn’t even mentioned in the Conservative manifesto in 2019: “We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations”.

Voter photographic ID compromises one of the few aspects of British civic life that still works – free elections. It will also mean that future governments and local councils can take even less notice of the needs of the young, the poor and some ethnic minorities. They can instead favour the older and wealthier members of the electorate because that’s where the votes will be, more than ever.

Far from protecting democracy, voter ID is undermining it. It should be torn up.