Austin, Tex. — On the face of it, requesting identification in order to vote does not seem like an impediment to democracy. But concealed handgun licenses — one of seven accepted forms of government-issued photo identification under Texas’s strict voter ID law — tell a different story.
Over the past few months my colleagues Katherine Jensen, Ken-Hou Lin and I have been trying to examine whether voter ID laws are good or bad for democracy by collecting data on concealed handgun license applications. While these applications may seem an odd choice for examining whether voter ID laws may disenfranchise anyone, they actually point to the likelihood of persistent racism within the process of obtaining state-issued IDs.
Based on Texas-wide data we acquired from the Department of Public Safety for the years 2010-2013, a period during which a total of 590,042 people applied for a concealed handgun license, we found that black men are 2.79 times more likely to be denied a license than white men, and that black women are 4.74 times more likely to be denied one than white women. Such racial disparity is not unique to Texas. In Indiana, where 321,475 people applied for a concealed handgun license during this same time period, black men are 5.54 times more likely to be denied a license than white men, while black women are 7.26 times more likely to be denied one than white women. Whether we are talking about Texas or Indiana, if you are black, you are significantly less likely to be issued this form of identification.
One might suspect that the racial disparity simply reflects differences in
the criminal backgrounds of the applicants. But such an explanation overlooks the various criteria employed in the application process, which move beyond considering the criminal backgrounds of the applicants and include subjective dimensions.
In order to be eligible for a concealed handgun license in Texas, which allows you to carry a concealed gun nearly everywhere you go, applicants must pay a $140 fee, prove their citizenship and residency status, be 21 years old, complete a 4 to 6 hour training course and pass a notoriously easy marksmanship test. (As a local shooting instructor recently told me, “If you can’t pass the test, not only shouldn’t you be allowed to have a gun, you shouldn’t be allowed to walk.”) Moreover, although these applicants will have already undergone an F.B.I. background check when they initially purchased their gun, Texas mandates that they undergo an additional screening process, which includes determining not simply criminal background, but whether the person is chemically dependent; is not delinquent in making child support payments, in paying taxes, or in paying money owed to any other agency or subdivision of the state; and that they are not subject to a restraining order. Finally, the Texas Department of Public Safety must rule that the person is capable of “exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun.”
In some states, known as “May Issue” states, the subjective element is even more pronounced. For example, in Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina and, until recently, California, applicants need to provide “good cause” for having a gun license, and the local sheriff has to deem them to be of good “moral character.”
So are blacks and whites denied for similar reasons? We have been asking Texas and Indiana for this data and have yet to receive it. Indeed, while we applaud both Texas and Indiana for making certain data available to us, in our efforts to collect better data, including data across the United States, my colleagues and I have faced enormous challenges. This lack of transparency has led black applicants in Illinois, who cannot comprehend why they are being denied concealed gun licenses when they have no criminal histories, to file a lawsuit in order to require the state to provide them with reasons for their denials.
It is unlikely that the racial bias found in Texas’s licensing practices would ever result in the disenfranchisement of a particular voter. Most, if not all, applicants are likely to have other forms of photo ID. But it does tell us that we need to better understand the process by which people acquire state-issued IDs. The answer to that cannot and need not rest on ideology. What we need is good data. And until states provide it the burden of proof must be on them to show that such requirements do not prevent otherwise eligible voters from voting.