Voter ID is a “Poisoned Cure” and Must Be Reformed Finds Parliamentary Inquiry
A cross-party inquiry by MPs has concluded that the voter ID rule which came into force for the first time in the 2023 local elections “disenfranchises more voters than it protects” and requires urgent reform.
The review was conducted by the cross-party All Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution. The group tasked a panel of senior MPs and peers to examine the performance of the voter-ID scheme at the 2023 election. The Panel was chaired by John Nicolson MP (SNP) and included Sir Robert Buckland KC MP (Con), Lord Hendy KC (Lab), and Dawn Butler MP (Lab). The Inquiry took evidence from independent election observers, the Electoral Commission, academic experts, and voters themselves. The inquiry focused on the impact of the regime on voters rather than on previous party-political arguments about voter-ID.
The inquiry made four key findings:
The current voter-ID system is, as it stands, a “poisoned cure” in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects. Voter-ID was introduced to combat polling station “personation” (voting in person in someone else’s name). There have been eight instances in the last decade (an average of less than one per year). The voter-ID requirement prevented at least 14 000 people from voting (the real number is likely substantially higher because the Electoral Commission’s data doesn’t take into account people turned away by “greeters” before they entered the polling station). This means that more than 14 000 people (who were likely entitled to vote) were denied a ballot for every one case of personation prevented.
There were no instances of the voter ID requirement changing the result of an election in 2023. However, in several areas, the numbers turned away would have been sufficient to swing the result of up to 16 constituencies in the general election (based on 2019 figures).
2. The inherent ambiguity in the regime creates a real risk of injustice and potential discrimination. The selection of documents that were accepted as qualifying ID appeared arbitrary. There was, for example, no reason (that the Panel could find) for permitting an Oyster 60+ pass but not a Merseyside 60+ pass when the checks involved for each are substantially identical.
The Panel also identified evidence of racial and disability discrimination at polling stations, noting that independent election observers had recorded non-white people being turned away even when they had qualifying ID while some white people were permitted to vote without showing ID at all. One witness, who suffered from immune deficiency which requires her to wear a mask in public, was not permitted to vote unless she removed the mask (even though she provided evidence of her disability and identity[WM1] ).
3. The regime lacks the flexibility necessary to avoid injustices. The regime is too heavily reliant on decisions made by polling clerks and presiding officers for which there is no formal right to appeal. This puts unnecessary and unfair pressure on polling station workers and leads to unjust results.
4. The problems identified are systemic but not fundamental, with targeted reforms the voter-ID regime can be an asset to UK democracy. The Panel noted that many other states have voter-ID regimes which are effective at protecting the integrity of the ballot but don’t deliver the injustices inherent in the UK system. It concluded that the regime should remain in place but subject to structural reforms.
It, consequently, made three recommendations:
(1) Permit electors to “cure” a failed ID check by making a statutory declaration. This reflects measures in other states which have voter-ID (such as Canada). It utilises an existing mechanism in UK law whereby people can sign a declaration attesting to their identity and right to vote. The Panel concluded that this strikes the right balance between deterrence and flexibility because the penalty for making a false statutory declaration can be up to two years in prison.
(2) Broaden the range of accepted identification documents. The government must set clear criteria for how it decides which forms of ID are accepted. It is only with this clarity that it can dispel the impression that the accepted of ID are arbitrarily or unfairly selected.
(3) Provide better training for polling station officers.
The APPGDC has pioneered a highly forensic approach to parliamentary inquiries. This inquiry was supported by counsel (Dr Sam Fowles of Cornerstone Barristers) and research teams at the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research and Oxford University. The Panel also received legal advice from Philip Coppel KC (Cornerstone Barristers), one of the UK’s leading election lawyers.
John Nicolson MP, who chaired the inquiry, said:
“Voters must be able to exercise their democratic rights by casting their ballot, and they must have the security of knowing that no one is going to undermine that right by voting in their name. The voter-ID system, as it stands, doesn’t get the balance right. You don’t solve anything by disenfranchising voters. The reforms in this report will ensure that the integrity of the vote is protected without compromising the democratic rights of voters.”
Sir Robert Buckland KC MP, who was a member of the cabinet (Secretary of State for Justice) when the Elections Bill (which introduced the requirement for voter-ID) was introduced to Parliament, said:
“We need to reduce uncertainty about voter ID to an absolute minimum, which is why the recommendations in this report are sensible and ought to be implemented .”
Dr Sam Fowles, Director of the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research and Counsel to the Inquiry said:
Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to agree that we want our voting system to be secure and we want everyone who is entitled to do so to be able to cast their ballot. The Panel have come together, setting aside partisan politics, to find a way to ensure that happens. I hope that the Panel’s recommendations can be implemented in time for the next general election.
To arrange an interview or for more information, please contact:
Interviews can be facilitated with members of the inquiry panel and with those who gave evidence.
William Murphy, wmurphy@cornerstonebarristers.com
020 7242 4986
Sam Fowles, sfowles@cornerstonebarristers.com
The full report is available at www.icdr.co.uk
Notes
The APPG on Democracy and the Constitution is a cross party group which seeks to improve parliamentary and public understanding of democratic and constitutional issues and to enhance the UK’s democratic constitution.
The officers of the APPGDC are John Nicolson (Chair), Lord Garnier KC (Vice-Chair), Lord Hendy KC (Vice-Chair), Dawn Butler MP (Vice-Chair), Jonathan Djanogly MP (Vice Chair).
The APPG previously conducted high profile inquiries into the policing of the Clapham Common vigil for Sarah Everard (which exposed that police “breached the fundamental rights of protestors”) and into judicial independence (which concluded that ministers had acted improperly in putting public pressure on judges).
Sam Fowles, who served as counsel to the inquiry, is the Director of the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research and has argued many of the leading constitutional and human rights cases of recent years, including Miller v Prime Minister (in which the Supreme Court overturned the 2019 prorogation of parliament) and Hamilton v Post Office (overturning the unlawful convictions resulting from the Post Office “Horizon” scandal).
Daniella Lock, of the Bonnavero Institute at Oxford University provided research assistance.
From October 2023 the voter ID requirement will extend to postal and proxy voting.