Some states require voters at a polling place to produce photographic identification (photo ID) before casting a ballot. Such requirements have emerged as a controversial issue in the 2012 presidential election, and they are the focus of this report. Since 2008, almost half the states have enacted laws, many in 2012, relating to voter identification, with several containing photo ID requirements. In contrast, while several bills with voter identification provisions have been introduced in the 112th Congress, none have received committee or floor consideration. About 30 states require voters to provide some form of identification when voting in person, although few require such documentation for absentee voters. Seven of these states require a photo ID for polling-place voting but permit alternatives such as signing an affidavit for voters without an ID. With respect to what type of photo ID is acceptable and what happens if a voter does not have it, no two states are the same. Four states-Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee-permit only voters who present a photo ID to cast a ballot, with few exceptions. Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin recently enacted similarly strict photo ID requirements that are not in effect at present because of court or U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) actions. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indiana voter photo ID law under the U.S. Constitution on equal protection grounds. However, in more recent cases, the question being considered is whether such laws violate relevant state constitutions. Whether voter photo ID laws comport with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has also recently been considered by the courts and DOJ. Section 5 of the VRA requires certain states and jurisdictions to obtain preclearance from either DOJ or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing a change to any voting practice or procedure. For example, in March 2012, DOJ denied preclearance approval under Section 5 to laws in Texas and South Carolina that require voters to show photo ID prior to casting a ballot. Subsequently, federal courts also denied preclearance to both laws, so they will not be in effect for the November 6, 2012, election. The South Carolina law, however, was granted preclearance to take effect in any election beginning in 2013. Photo ID requirements enacted in Alabama and Mississippi are slated for implementation after 2012, and are also subject to preclearance. Supporters of photo ID requirements emphasize the need to prevent voter fraud, while opponents emphasize the need to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters who do not have ready access to a photo ID. Polling data suggest that most voters and most local election officials support a photo ID requirement but that many are also concerned about the risk of disenfranchisement. The policy controversy centers largely on whether the risk of disenfranchisement or the risk of voter fraud is the greater threat to the integrity of the electoral process. This policy debate is being conducted in the absence of a broad consensus about the evidence pertaining to those risks. Election administration is complex, and changes in photo ID requirements may affect other aspects as well, among them the use of provisional ballots, the potential for long lines, and the possibility that poll workers could misapply the new rules. It may be advantageous to have as much time as possible to implement changes to voting procedures, so that election officials, poll workers, and voters have time to adjust.

Legal protections for employees who report illegal misconduct by their employers have increased dramatically since the late 1970s when such protections were first adopted for federal employees in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Since that time, with the enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Congress has expanded such protections for federal employees. Congress has also established whistleblower protections for individuals in certain private-sector employment through the adoption of whistleblower provisions in at least 18 federal statutes. Among these statutes is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In general, claims for relief under the 18 federal statutes follow a similar pattern. Complaints are typically filed with the Secretary of Labor, and an investigation is conducted. Following the investigation, an order is issued by the Secretary, and a party aggrieved by the order is generally permitted to appeal the Secretary's order to a federal court. However, because 18 different statutes are involved in prescribing whistleblower protections, some notable differences exist. For example, under the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1987, individuals employed by defense contractors who engage in whistleblowing activities file complaints with the Inspector General rather than the Secretary of Labor. Under some of the statutes, including the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, the Secretary's preliminary order will become a final order if no objections are filed within a prescribed time period. This report provides an overview of key aspects of the 18 selected federal statutes applicable to individuals in certain private-sector industries. It focuses on the protections provided to employees who believe they have been subject to retaliation, rather than on how or where alleged misconduct should be disclosed. In addition, the report also includes an overview of the Whistleblower Protection Act. While state law may also provide whistleblower protections for employees, this report focuses only on the aforementioned federal statutory provisions.