Can America Copy India’s Voter-ID System?

Constitutional expert Prof. Raka Arya explains what Trump’s proposal misses

Trump has praised India’s use of photo identification and limited postal voting. Prof. Raka Arya of NLIU Bhopal says voter identification can strengthen confidence in elections—but America cannot simply transplant the Indian model without addressing its federal structure and voters’ access to documents.

US President Donald Trump has presented India’s election system as a model for America, highlighting the use of photo identification and the relatively small share of postal ballots in Indian elections.

Referring to the 2024 Lok Sabha election, Trump said India recorded approximately 646 million votes, less than one per cent of which were cast by post, while voters were required to establish their identity through a valid photo document. Election Commission data cited in recent reports puts the number of postal ballots at about 42.82 lakh—approximately 0.66 per cent of all votes cast.

But can a system designed for India’s centrally supervised elections actually work in the United States?

Prof. (Dr.) Raka Arya, Professor of Political Science at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, told Dainik Jagran MPCG that stronger voter identification can be a constructive electoral safeguard. However, she cautioned that election rules cannot be separated from the constitutional and administrative structure of the country applying them.

Voter ID Can Strengthen Verification

Prof. Arya said elections become more credible when the identity of every voter can be established clearly.

A photo-identification requirement, in her assessment, can help ensure that the person arriving to vote is the genuine elector whose name appears on the electoral roll. Distinct and verifiable identification may also make impersonation more difficult and strengthen public confidence in the process.

She described proper voter identification as a broadly positive reform—but indicated that its success depends on implementation.

The central question is not merely whether an identity document should be required. Authorities must also ensure that eligible citizens are not prevented from voting simply because they lack one particular document.

India’s system itself contains this flexibility. The Election Commission of India says a voter who does not possess an Electors Photo Identity Card, or EPIC, can establish identity using one of several approved documents, including a passport, driving licence and specified government-issued photo documents. A voter-information slip alone is not accepted as identification.

Therefore, describing India’s system simply as ‘one voter card or no vote’ would be misleading. India combines an electoral roll, photo identification and a list of alternative documents.

Why America Cannot Simply Copy India

The deeper difficulty lies in the different constitutional designs of the two countries.

India has an independent constitutional Election Commission that supervises elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President. This allows broadly uniform procedures to be issued across the country, even though elections are implemented through state and district machinery.

The United States follows a much more decentralised system. States—and often counties and local authorities—administer elections under their own laws. Consequently, voter registration, acceptable identification, early voting and postal-ballot rules can differ substantially from one state to another.

Prof. Arya explained that this difference does not make electoral reform impossible, but it makes a single nationwide Indian-style model legally and administratively more difficult. Any major reform must follow the division of powers established by the US Constitution rather than being imposed merely through presidential direction.

That limitation has already become visible. A US federal judge recently blocked parts of a Trump executive order seeking to change mail-voting procedures, finding that the executive branch lacked the necessary authority over election administration.

In other words, Trump may cite India as an example, but an American President does not possess the same election-management powers that India’s Election Commission exercises under the Indian Constitution.

Would Voter ID Make Voting Safer—or Harder?

Supporters of Trump’s proposal argue that documentary proof of citizenship and photo identification would deter impersonation and prevent ineligible people from entering voter rolls.

The proposed SAVE America Act would require documentary proof of US citizenship while registering for federal elections and photo identification while voting. It also proposes an alternative process for citizens who cannot immediately produce the prescribed documents.

Opponents, however, argue that strict documentation requirements could disproportionately affect citizens who do not possess passports, easily accessible birth records or identity documents carrying their current names.

Prof. Arya’s assessment points towards a balance: identification can protect the integrity of voting, but the rules must not turn a security measure into an unreasonable barrier for legitimate electors.

A workable system would therefore require accessible identification, sufficient time for compliance, alternative documents and a clear procedure for resolving discrepancies.

Why Postal Voting Is More Common in America

Trump has also used India’s low postal-ballot share to question America’s much greater reliance on mail voting.

Prof. Arya said the comparison must account for the two countries’ distinct electoral practices. India primarily treats voting as an in-person exercise and permits postal ballots for defined categories of electors. Several US states, by contrast, have developed mail voting as a regular and widely available method.

This means the difference is not necessarily proof that one country’s system is secure and the other’s is defective. It reflects different laws, administrative histories, geography and established voter practices.

Any attempt to reduce postal voting in America would also have to consider elderly voters, people with disabilities, military personnel, citizens living away from their registered addresses and residents of areas where travelling to a polling station may be difficult.

What America Can Learn From India

India’s most relevant lesson for the United States may not be the voter card alone.

It is the combination of a clearly prepared electoral roll, identifiable voters, nationally communicated procedures, polling-station-level verification and an election authority with visible institutional responsibility.

Prof. Arya’s analysis suggests that reforms work best when they increase both security and citizens’ confidence. Identification must establish who is voting, but the larger election system must also remain accessible, transparent and constitutionally valid.

America can study India’s experience, but it cannot import it wholesale.

Trump’s proposal ultimately raises a question larger than voter ID: can the United States create greater uniformity in elections without overriding the authority of its states or making voting harder for lawful citizens?

That debate will have to be settled through legislation, constitutional scrutiny and cooperation with states—not by comparison alone.