{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019769357495881382, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.262886597938144, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Political Benefits of Voter ID Lawsuits

In one of the most pronounced developments in American political and election law over the past two decades, voter ID laws have developed from an insipid topic of interest only to policy wonks and local government enthusiasts into one of the most contentious and hot-button issues in American politics. To date, the Democratic party — either directly as plaintiffs or indirectly via its attorneys — have filed nearly a dozen lawsuits challenging voter ID laws across the United States, arguing such laws disproportionately burden minority voters. However, these lawsuits are puzzling considering the minimal impact these laws have, as social science scientists have yet to conclude these laws have a racially disparate impact. Furthermore, this litigation is costly and limited: it is time-consuming, expensive, ineffective, and risky. Why Democrats continue to litigate voter ID laws, in light of these costs and limitations, is the central inquiry of this Essay. To answer it, this Essay applies emerging sociolegal theories that reveal the benefits litigation engenders unto the litigating party, thus explaining the Democratic penchant for litigating voter ID laws.