New study from key swing state shatters popular narrative against Voter ID: 'No evidence'
FIRST ON FOX: A study in the crucial swing state of Wisconsin runs contrary to the popular claim of many on the political left and concludes that voter ID laws have not suppressed the vote in the state.
"The study finds no statistically significant negative impact of Wisconsin's voter ID law on overall voter turnout," the new study from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) concludes.
"In fact, turnout has slightly increased since the law's implementation, challenging claims that voter ID requirements lead to widespread disenfranchisement."
Critics have also railed against voter ID laws in recent years, claiming that it disenfranchises minority voters who, according to critics, have difficulty obtaining identification. The study states that it found "no evidence of a negative effect on turnout from the implementation of voter ID among non-white Wisconsinites."
The study compared turnout in Wisconsin over a 20-year period, starting with the 2004 presidential election and ending with the 2024 presidential election while including gubernatorial elections in the years between. WILL acknowledged that turnout can be "impacted by many factors beyond voter ID laws" but explained that it "included these key control variables to ensure we isolated the law's true impact."
Wisconsin established voter ID laws in 2011 that have undergone several court challenges in the following years.
Will Flanders, research director at WILL, told Fox News Digital that he hopes people takeaway from this study that the popular narratives about voter ID laws are not based in data.
"When people make these claims that voter I.D. is this instrument of suppression, there's really no evidence to back that up," Flanders said.
"People often say it's especially hard for minorities and folks from low-income backgrounds. We specifically looked at the impact on areas with more minority voters, and we found that there's no evidence, even in those areas, to support this case. There's no impact on voter turnout in areas with high numbers of minority residents relative to other parts of the state as well. So no impact overall and no impact on those voters that are generally claimed to be most affected."
Honest Elections Project Action Executive Director Jason Snead told Fox News Digital that the WILL report is consistent with "many" other studies that show voter ID laws "do not do what the Left claims."
"To the contrary, voter ID laws enhance public trust in elections, leading directly to higher voter turnout and greater trust in the democratic process. Liberal politicians are desperate to mislead the public, but the truth is that voter ID laws are overwhelmingly popular. That is why 36 states have them and voters in states as diverse as North Carolina and Nevada have voted for ballot measures to require voter ID."
On April 1, voters in Wisconsin will be asked if they want to enshrine Wisconsin's voter ID law into the state Constitution.
Polling shows that the majority of Americans support the idea of requiring identification to vote.
The latest Gallup poll on the issue showed that more than 80% of voters support showing photo identification to vote as well as providing proof of citizenship.
A 2024 Pew Research Poll also showed a bipartisan consensus that over 80% of Americans support voter ID measures.
In Wisconsin, nearly 75% of residents polled by Marquette University Law School supported voter ID.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Tells German Chancellor D-Day Was 'Not A Pleasant Day For You'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that D-Day—the day Allied forces invaded Normandy, France, during World War II—was "not a great day" for Germany. What To Know Trump made his comments while he and Merz spoke to reporters during Merz's White House visit on Thursday. Merz pointed out that the anniversary of D-Day is on Friday, saying it was when "the Americans ... ended the war in Europe." "That was not a pleasant day for you," Trump responded. "No, that was not a pleasant—well—" Merz began before Trump interjected. "This was not a great day," Trump said. Merz cut in: "In the long run, Mr. President, this was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship." "That's true," Trump said. Merz went on to say that "we know what we owe you," adding that the U.S. can play a similarly crucial role in bringing an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. "America is, again, in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war, so let's talk about what we can do jointly," the German chancellor said. "We are ready to do what we can and you know that we gave support to Ukraine and that we are looking for more pressure on Russia ... we should talk about that." MERZ: Tomorrow is the D Day anniversary, when the Americans ended a war in Europe TRUMP: That was not a pleasant day for you? This is not a great day MERZ: This was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 5, 2025 President Donald Trump, right, meets Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump, right, meets Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump's Controversial Pardons Make Some Republicans Squirm
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump's pardons of white-collar criminals whosupport his presidency and donate to his campaigns stoked plenty of outrage from Democrats and former law enforcement officials last week. Now, even some Republicans are signaling their discomfort with his decisions to grant clemency ― and the way he's going about it. 'I think that when the president pardons someone, they need to carefully explain why injustice was done,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told HuffPost. 'And I think pardons should be rare, and President Trump likes pardons much more than I do.'In recent weeks, Trump has pardoned a former Virginia sheriff who was convicted of trying to sell deputy badges, a Las Vegas politician who stole money intended for a memorial dedicated to a fallen police officer, a tax cheat whose mother raised millions of dollars for Republican political campaigns, and a pair of reality television stars who were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion. The pardons appear to have been politically motivated, a reward for MAGA die-hards who stood with Trump and his movement. 'No MAGA left behind,' Ed Martin, the president's controversial new pardon attorney, wrote in a social media post last month. Trump also shocked many Republicans when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters who were convicted of assaulting or interfering with police officers, roughly 1,000 nonviolent offenders and around 200 people accused of assaulting police. A number of those pardoned have since been rearrested for other alleged crimes. 'On its face, you got to be pretty careful,' Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another Senate Judiciary Committee member, said of Trump's latest pardons. 'I haven't looked at the current ones, but I think I'm pretty well staked out on about two or three hundred of Jan. 6 people who never should have been pardoned.' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the 'best approach' for issuing pardons is to follow a process and make decisions on clemency requests after a recommendation from a parole board or the Department of Justice. The president's pardon power under the U.S. Constitution is broad and completely unchecked. Presidents aren't bound to go through a certain process ― though some follow DOJ guidelines more than others ― and they're free to pardon whomever, no matter the crime. Some of President Joe Biden's pardons also drew outrage ― including for his son Hunter Biden. 'The only way you're going to fix it or change it would be, I think, through a constitutional amendment, and that would take a long time to do,' Rounds said. 'I think just the American people being aware of it is an important part of this discussion. I don't know that you're going to fix it as much as bring attention to it.' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed a question about Trump's pardons by pointing to controversial pardons issued by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. 'There's no sense of making any comments about the president's pardons because it's totally his own decision ― any president in the United States,' Grassley said. 'And nobody asked me about the 2,500 pardons that [Bill] Clinton gave, and so I'm not going to make any comments on pardons that Trump makes.' Trump, meanwhile, seems far more interested in probing his predecessor's pardons. On Wednesday, the president directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, accusing his aides of concealing his 'cognitive decline' and casting doubts on the legitimacy of his use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. The order followed weeks of inquiries by Republican lawmakers into Biden's mental and physical health as president following the release of a new book chronicling the former president's 'decline, its cover-up and his disastrous choice to run again.' Biden, however, denied the accusations from Trump in a statement Wednesday: 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What will Trump's megabill do to programs like Medicare and SNAP?
A large part of funding for President Donald Trump's second-term agenda would come from cuts to safety net programs like Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans and those with disabilities, and SNAP, which helps millions of lower-income Americans buy groceries every month. The bill passed by the House makes around $600 billion in cuts to Medicaid. About 10.9 million people could lose their coverage over the next 10 years, according to Wednesday's estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. The SNAP cuts total an estimated $230 billion over 10 years. MORE: Trump tries to shore up support for megabill among Senate GOP at White House meeting Republicans say their goal is reducing 'waste, fraud, and abuse' in these programs to save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade and to pay for Trump's tax cuts and increased funding for the border and defense. Here's a breakdown of those cuts in the current form of the bill: Work requirements: The bill imposes new 80-hours per month work requirements on able-bodied Medicaid recipients aged 19 to 64 who don't have dependents. These requirements include working or other approved activities such as volunteering. Under the bill's current text, these work requirements won't kick in until 2026. Increased eligibility checks: The bill also requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations at least every six months for all recipients instead of the current 12 months. Undocumented migrants: The legislation seeks to prohibit states from using their funds to cover undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid, but 14 states and the District of Columbia have opted to use their own funds to cover those individuals. This bill would penalize them by reducing Medicaid funding. The White House estimates approximately 1.4 million undocumented migrants would lose coverage. MORE: Trump administration live updates Increased copays: The bill increases copays for Medicaid recipients who make more than the federal poverty level of just over $15,500 for single beneficiaries. They would be required to pay an extra $35 dollar copay in some visits. Income and residency verification: Required Medicaid paperwork for income and residency verification will increase as lawmakers look to crack down on people who are 'double-dipping' in multiple jurisdictions. The additional steps are expected to especially impact seniors and others who can't promptly respond. Prohibits funds for abortion providers and gender transition care: The legislation would ban Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood as long as the organization provides abortions and abortion services. The legislation also prohibits Medicaid funds from going to gender transition care, including puberty blockers, hormone treatments and surgery. In the initial text of the bill, this language applied only to children, but it was expanded to include adults shortly before the House vote. MORE: CBO estimates Trump's bill could add $2.4T to deficit, leave 11 million without health insurance Obamacare enrollment: The bill ends open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act a month earlier. Most states hold open enrollment from Nov. 1 to Jan. 15. The House bill requires open enrollment to end on Dec. 15. An analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation found in 2025 that roughly 40% of enrollees, or about 10 million people, selected plans after Dec. 15. The legislation also eliminates a Biden-era policy that allows year-round ACA enrollment for the poorest Americans -- those who make up to 150% of the poverty level, or around $22,600 a year. Americans will still be able to enroll year-round if they've had a 'change in circumstances or the occurrence of a specific event.' These changes would codify a rule proposed in March by the Trump administration's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The bill tightens eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which used to be called the 'food stamp' program, which helped roughly 42 million low-income people buy groceries per month in 2024. Work requirements: The bill raises the age for work requirements from 54 to 64. A similar bill introduced in the House in 2023 would have reduced rolls by between 3 million and 3.5 million people, according to the CBO. It would also require parents with children older than 6 to meet the work requirement. There is currently no work requirement for SNAP beneficiaries with dependent children at home. Shifting costs to states: SNAP is currently 100% federally funded. The bill requires states to share in at least 5% of SNAP benefit costs starting in 2028. Indirect effects: The changes could have an impact on school lunch programs, requiring some previously eligible families to apply for access and on federal reimbursement payments for some school districts.
