"I felt confident in the voting process and election integrity."
"It felt like the government didn't want young people to vote."
These quotes capture the mixed feelings young people shared with me about voter ID, which applied nationwide for the first time in the 2024 General Election.
In a healthy democracy, everyone should be heard – and in theory, voting should be one of the most accessible ways to participate.
With concerns that voter ID might hit marginalised groups hardest, I wanted to explore what it meant for young people, especially given their already lower turnout.
Key questions
For my final-year LLB Law dissertation at University College London (UCL), I wanted to hear directly from young people about their experiences and views on voter ID.
- Did voter ID affect youth turnout?
- Was it a barrier or enabler to participation?
- How did it shape trust in democratic institutions?
- Were some groups of young people affected more than others?
About the survey
I created a survey with multiple choice and open-ended questions, aimed at those aged 18-24 on Election Day (4 July 2024) who were eligible to register by the deadline (23:59, 18 June). It didn’t matter whether they actually registered or voted, only that they were eligible.
The survey ran from mid-February to mid-March 2025 and was shared primarily on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, and WhatsApp, with a message encouraging people to take part and/or share it within their networks. It received 148 eligible responses.
Who took part
Most people who responded were electorally engaged: 92% said they voted in the 2024 election. That’s much higher than the actual youth turnout of 37%, and overall turnout of about 50% (see IPSOS data here).
Most voted in person (and therefore were required to present ID). Voter ID wasn’t a major issue for most – awareness of the need to bring ID was high, and most had valid ID. A few chose postal voting to avoid showing ID, and one person said they couldn’t vote at all because they lacked accepted ID.
In practice, voter ID had little effect on this group. My findings mainly reflect the experiences of electorally engaged young people, as non-voters – who may face greater political exclusion – were significantly underrepresented. This is an important limitation to acknowledge. Still, it’s revealing to see how voter ID shaped this politically engaged group’s views and feelings about democracy.
How young people felt about voter ID
I asked respondents how fair and necessary they felt voter ID was. First, they selected from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” for each question, then had the option to explain their views in a follow-up text box. Responses varied widely:
Respondents who disagreed with both the fairness and necessity of voter ID saw it as a barrier to voting. Many felt it addressed a problem that barely exists, pointing to how rare voter fraud is in the UK. Several described it as a form of voter suppression, saying it disproportionately affected groups seen as less likely to vote Conservative (the party in power at the time, which introduced the policy). Many called it “discriminatory” and said free ID options were poorly publicised or difficult to access.
Those who agreed that voter ID was fair and necessary typically saw it as a common-sense way to protect elections. Many compared it to showing ID for everyday tasks like buying alcohol, saying it was a small ask and that “everyone has ID”. Some acknowledged access issues but felt these could be solved with support or free options.
Some agreed with one aspect but not the other. Those who saw it as necessary but unfair supported fraud prevention in principle but criticised unequal access and low awareness. Those who saw it as fair but unnecessary felt ID checks were reasonable in theory, but unjustified given the low risk of fraud.
Those who neither agreed nor disagreed often said they felt unsure or didn’t know enough about voter ID to judge.
Voters vs non-voters
Even in this small sample, there were clear differences:
- Non-voters were more likely to support voter ID. They hadn’t had bad experiences with it and often reported lower political knowledge.
- Voters, who were more politically engaged and had used the system, were more likely to oppose voter ID, citing concerns about fairness and access.
This suggests that experience matters. If you’ve navigated the system, you’re more likely to spot its flaws.
Intersectional perspectives: gender and disability
People’s views also seemed shaped by their identities:
Gender
Of the 120 respondents who provided gender data, 90 (75%) were women, 25 (20.8%) were men, and 4 (3.3%) were non-binary. 2 respondents (1.7%) were transgender and 117 (97.5%) were not transgender.
- Men and women selected broadly similar options on the fairness of voter ID, though men were more likely to strongly agree it was fair (men: 28%; women: 8.9%).
- Women were more likely to disagree with the necessity of voter ID (women: 27.8%; men: 6%), whereas men were more likely to strongly agree (men: 20%; women: 8.9%).
- All transgender and non-binary respondents opposed both the fairness and necessity of voter ID.
Disability
Of the 120 respondents who provided disability data, 32 (26.7%) were disabled and 81 (67.5%) were non-disabled.
- Most disabled respondents disagreed with the fairness of voter ID (59.4% strongly disagreed or disagreed; 21.9% strongly agreed or agreed).
- Disabled people made up over half (56.5%) of those who strongly disagreed with the fairness of voter ID. 86.7% of respondents who strongly agreed were non-disabled.
- Responses on the necessity of voter ID followed a similar pattern.
This might reflect lower trust in institutions or greater awareness of barriers among marginalised groups.
What this tells us and why this matters
Even in this small sample, young people didn’t speak with one voice. Their views were diverse, likely shaped by their level of political engagement and by intersecting identities like gender and disability.
Some saw voter ID as a useful safeguard. Others viewed it as exclusionary and suppressive. While scepticism didn’t tend to lead to disengagement in this group, it highlights the importance of trust in shaping how different young people participate in politics.
These perspectives matter: not just for understanding why some young people don’t vote, but also for understanding how young people connect with, or feel excluded from, democracy.
Policies like voter ID do more than shape who votes. They can shape how people feel about democracy itself – whether they feel included, trusted, and represented.
There’s still much we don’t know. A larger, nationally representative study using an intersectional approach could reveal broader patterns and possible causes. That kind of evidence could help build fairer electoral policy, and a democracy more young people can trust.
Amanda Amaeshi is a British Nigerian activist, campaigner, and writer specialising in gender equality, anti-racism, and youth political participation. She is a First Class Honours LLB Law graduate from University College London (UCL), in which she critically engaged with the law’s role in advancing human rights and social justice.
Amanda serves on the First Minister’s National Advisory Council on Women and Girls (NACWG), engaging in collaborative intersectional policy scrutiny and providing the much-needed youth voice to ensure that NACWG’s work in holding the Scottish Government to account is helpful for girls and young women. She is also a Trustee for the Young Women’s Movement, providing strategic oversight and governance for Scotland’s national young women’s organisation.
For her writing and campaigning work, Amanda was named on the Young Women’s Movement’s 30 Under 30 list for 2020 and the WOW Foundation’s Young Leaders Directory 2022. In April 2021 she was named the Glasgow Times Young Scotswoman of the Year 2020. In November 2024, she was named My Life My Say’s Next Gen: Changemaker of the Year.
Connect with Amanda: