Articles The Effects of Voter IDNotification on Voter Turnout: Results from a Large-Scale Field Experiment Jack Citrin, Donald P. Green, and Morris Levy ABSTRACT State voter identification (ID) laws have proliferated in the past ten years. Political campaigns remain divided about whether and how to address identification requirements when encouraging voter turnout. This article reports results from a direct mail get-out-the-vote (GOTV) experiment, conducted during the run-up to the 2012 general election in counties along the Tennessee-Virginia border and in heavily African American precincts in Roanoke and Knoxville. Results indicate that informing low-propensity voters of a new identification requirement raises turnout by approximately one percentage point. Messages providing details about ID requirements and offering to help recipients obtain acceptable ID appear some- what more effective than messages only pointing out the need to bring proof of identification. These mail- ings, which have similar effects in both states, also appear to raise turnout among others in the recipients’ households. Overall, we find no evidence that calling attention to voter identification requirements dissuades voters from voting. A dvocated as a safeguard for electoral integrity and excoriated as voter suppression akin to Jim Crow-era poll taxes, 1 state voter identi- fication (voter ID) laws have proliferated over the last ten years. Of the thirty voter ID laws on the books, 2 the seven ‘‘strict’’statutes, which disqualify provisional ballots cast if the voter fails to furnish the required identification, 3 have predictably drawn the most fire. Of these, four (Georgia, Indi- ana, Kansas, and Tennessee) require photo identifi- cation while three others (Arizona, Ohio, and Virginia) accept other proof of identity and address as evidence of one’s eligibility to vote. 4 The debate about voter ID laws is polarized along familiar partisan and ideological fault-lines (Hood and Bullock 2008; Biggers and Hanmer 2011). Pro- moted by conservative advocacy groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (Mayer 2012), voter ID laws have been adopted almost exclusively in states controlled by Republicans. Jack Citrin is a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, CA. Donald P. Green is a professor of political science at Columbia University in New York, NY. Morris Levy is a graduate student in the Department of Political Science at the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, CA. 1 Speaking against Texas’ voter ID law, Attorney General Eric Holder said ‘‘we call [strict photo ID laws] poll taxes’’ (New Hampshire Union Leader 2012). A year earlier, Representative Steny Hoyer remarked at a congressional forum on the impacts of voter ID laws, ‘‘A poll tax by any other name would smell as vile’’ (quoted in Dropp 2012). 2 Three more have been passed and are either pending Depart- ment of Justice Section 5 preclearance or awaiting further judi- cial scrutiny. The National Council of State Legislatures tracks voter ID laws and associated legislative and judicial activity at < http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter- id.aspx# > . 3 Other laws permit a ballot to be counted as long as the voter signs an affidavit affirming his or her identity and eligibility to vote. 4 Of the additional six efforts to implement strict voter ID laws with photo identification requirements, two (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) have been enjoined by courts, two (Texas twice and Mississippi) were denied preclearance by the Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and two (Virginia’s new law and Arkansas’s) have yet to take effect. ELECTION LAW JOURNAL Volume 13, Number 2, 2014 # Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/elj.2013.0209 228