From Josh Douglas:

I am pleased to announce that the AALS Section on Election Law has selected the winner of the Call for Papers:  Hank Chambers (U. of Richmond) “Local Officials and Voter ID.”

Hank will join David Schleicher (Yale Law School), Jocelyn Benson (Wayne State), Richard T. Ford (Stanford), and Trey Grayson (former KY Secretary of State) at the Section’s program, titled “Election Law at the Local Level,” on  Friday, January 8, 2016 from 10:30 am-12:15 pm at the AALS Annual Meeting in New York City.

The final paper will be published in the Election Law Journal.  I have pasted the abstract below.

Congratulations, Hank!

Local Officials and Voter ID

Henry L. Chambers, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Richmond

The interpretation state and local officials provide of voting laws can be just as important as the substance of the law. For example, how voter identification laws are interpreted can be just as important as the fact that voter identification is required of voters at the polls.  Whether a voter can vote or be assured that his vote will be counted may depend on the interpretation of voter identification laws.  However, whether a voter can vote may also depend on how a poll official or poll worker interprets the law.  Further, how much time the voter or other voters must devote to voting may depend on how the local official or the poll worker interprets voter identification laws.

Virginia’s voter identification law provides an example.  One legitimate form of identification under that law is “any valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the voter and issued by an employer of the voter in the ordinary course of the employer’s business.” Va. Code §24.2-643.  The language of the law raises many issues.  Two are whether validity requires that the card have an unexpired expiration date and whether validity requires that the employee continues to be employed by the employer.  Though these questions can be answered by state or local officials well before an election, poll officials and poll workers must understand how officials have interpreted the law.

However, even if the official interpretation of the law is relatively clear, poll officials and poll workers still must determine whether the identification the voter presents is sufficient.  For example, if the validity of the identification requires that the voter be employed by the employer when the identification card is proffered, whether the poll worker may deny the identification if the voter cannot prove that he or she works for the employer or whether the poll worker may deny the identification only if there is a reason for the poll worker to suspect that the voter does not work for the employer remains an issue.  Resolving such issues in the absence of an absolutely clear interpretation of the law may take time.

The length of time necessary for a poll worker to determine whether a voter has valid identification matters.  Delays will affect how long other voters must wait to vote, the likelihood that those other voters will stay in line to vote, and the likelihood that others will see long lines and not bother to vote.  Media reports of long lines may also dissuade potential voters from approaching the polls at all.  That is particularly problematic given that voter identification is not about voter qualification, but is merely supposed to prove that the voter is the person identified in the poll book.