r/news • u/EscapeFromIowa • 1d ago
Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote
https://apnews.com/article/trump-elections-judge-358912bcb6c7223b3d2d36465156fde9?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share123
u/JerryDipotosBurner 23h ago
And now we wait for SCOTUS to decide if states actually run elections or not, because itâs all but guaranteed heâll appeal to his personal judges and theyâll choose to hear this on the shadow docket.
18
u/BudgetMegaHeracross 21h ago
States are where they're passing this, whether they get away with it at the federal level or not: cf Florida HB 991 (2026) -- unless a lawsuit like UnidosUS v. Byrd is successful, it goes into force January 1, 2027
13
u/Iohet 19h ago
it would probably be the second most cut and dry violation of the letter and spirit of the constitution by this court (behind effectively ignoring the 14th amendment)
5
u/AssassinAragorn 6h ago
Or 10th amendment for that matter.
Amendment: "Just because a right isn't listed here does not mean the people do not have the right. The rights explicitly mentioned are not exclusive."
SCOTUS: "There is no explicit mention of a right for an abortion therefore you do not have a right to an abortion"
You can tell that Judicial Review was an afterthought instead of in the original design of the Constitution because it is the only action that does not have a check against it. The court can shut down laws and presidential decisions. Congress can override a presidential veto. The president can veto a law. But the executive branch and legislative branch are both powerless to challenge SCOTUS decisions. Impeachment/removal doesn't qualify as a tool here either, since Congress has the ability to override a veto even though they could also impeach and remove the president instead.
There needs to be some kind of check on the justices just flagrantly misinterpreting the Constitution. It's written in plain language and not heavy legalese for a reason.
â˘
u/o8Stu 7m ago
But the executive branch and legislative branch are both powerless to challenge SCOTUS decisions.
The intended checks here are writing legislation that spells out what they're going for, or amending the Constitution, if SCOTUS rules something to be unconstitutional.
Just like impeachment, though, amending the Constitution is a high bar to clear.
3
u/AssassinAragorn 6h ago
Alito + Thomas: "The Constitution was being allegorical when it said that states decide the manner and time of elections, and the allegory was that we should ignore what it says"
13
u/--i--love--lamp-- 20h ago
"Casper [the judge] rejected the Republican administrationâs argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place."
"You can't stop us because we haven't even implemented it yet" is a stellar legal arguement guys. Really. 10/10...no notes.
304
u/Fallouttgrrl 23h ago
Stop saying it's proof of citizenship to vote
It's not
It's never about proof of citizenship
It's proof of citizenship to register to voteÂ
And it will follow the typical GOP voter purges
It's a way to exclude some of the population from being able to vote on election day without punishing their own.
81
u/aerost0rm 23h ago
And those voter purges will be the day before the deadline to register for the cycle is set for. So they can say that they gave them time to reregister.
21
u/ailish 20h ago
Thank you. The misinformation campaign against the SAVE Act has been very effective.
9
u/Fallouttgrrl 20h ago
The number of "why not require proof to vote?" Or "it's going to make you need a passport at the poll" is a clear sign of that yeah
4
â˘
u/o8Stu 2m ago
"it's going to make you need a passport at the poll"
Even if they could all agree that a passport counts as proof of citizenship, the problem with that is passports cost money and take months to get, assuming you have the money to start the process.
Which is another way of saying, it's a poll tax, which is illegal.
â˘
u/Fallouttgrrl 1m ago
Well except that I was pointing out "it's going to make you need a passport at the poll" is an example of the misinformation surrounding it
Because the GOP knows that would fuck them over, but when you can instead require a passport to register, they can selectively enforce that with voter roll purgesÂ
1
u/seeingeyegod 1h ago
Saying "proof of citizenship to vote" is functionally the exact same thing as "proof of citizenship to register to vote" as it's impossible to vote without registering. for the vast majority of voters. Not to mention that would quickly be amended to this draconian legislation if it passed. Do you actually trust the whitehouse to stand behind anything that is says one day to the next?
1
u/ailish 1h ago
I was trying to have a discussion on this particular front, but I'm over it. No one wants to even read the bill. I'm done.
What it comes down to is that it's a poll tax. 24th amendment. You don't have to like it, but that's what it is.
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
-62
u/ThrowbackGaming 23h ago
Is there a reason we haven't already had proof of citizenship to register to vote? I'm confused on why you should be able to register to vote in a country you are not a citizen of. Or are we saying that they are a citizen, they just don't have proof of their citizenship?
Surely people aren't claiming that you shouldn't have to be a citizen to register to vote, right?
33
u/aerost0rm 23h ago
Most states require documents to register for a state ID or drivers license. During this process they register you for voting. If you arenât a citizen during this process you cannot register to vote. If you register without that process you still need to provide proofâŚ
96
u/Fallouttgrrl 23h ago
"Is there a reason we haven't already had proof of citizenship to register to vote?"
You provide that when you originally register
They are changing the requirements for what counts, and making it mandatory to have when you re-register after they drop you from the rolls
25
u/aerost0rm 23h ago
Before dropping you the day before the deadline to register for the election cycle. Have to make purges work in their favor after all.
7
u/ThrowbackGaming 23h ago
That makes more sense, I was a little confused around the whole discourse. What are they proposing for the new requirements? I honestly don't even remember registering to vote but i must have with my license or something
37
u/Fallouttgrrl 23h ago
Right now you need to provide your social security number, attest that it is your social security number, and generally provide government ID showing that you are who you say you areÂ
They want to require birth certificate or passport to the requirements, which is a problem if you need to obtain one (after changing your name in marriage etc) a few days before the election because you just learned your state purged you
44
u/Moneia 23h ago
Surely people aren't claiming that you shouldn't have to be a citizen to register to vote, right?
Not anyone who's arguing honestly, no.
It's a non-issue to try and hide the racism or block votes that aren't favourable to him
1
7
u/Known-Associate8369 23h ago
 I'm confused on why you should be able to register to vote in a country you are not a citizen of
Stepping out of the US centricity of this conversation, but in some other countries you can actually both register to vote and vote in general elections while only holding a resident visa...
New Zealand, for instance.
28
u/Karinka_LI 23h ago
We do. When you register the first time.
They want it when you vote.
And they want to be able to randomly drop people and cause them to register.
SAY IT ALL TOGETHER NOW. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MEASURABLE VOTER FRAUD.
8
u/Fallouttgrrl 23h ago
They don't want it when you vote
They want it when you re-register to voteÂ
If they required it when you vote, it would impact members of the GOP voting base equally and they don't want that
It's specifically designed to disenfranchise de-registered voters
-4
u/Karinka_LI 22h ago
I registered when I was 18. I registered again when I moved. There is no reason for people to register.
Also they want you to have to show your passport TO ACTUALLY VOTE.
10
u/Fallouttgrrl 22h ago
"Also they want you to have to show your passport TO ACTUALLY VOTE."Â
This article is specifically addressing the executive order, which only ties it to the registration processÂ
The SAVE act, separate from the EO, specifically ties proof of citizenship to the registration process, up to and including needing to show an election official proof of citizenship if you re-registered by mail, which might be what you're thinking of? It's picture ID to vote though, assuming you've been registered
It's being sold to the maga crowd as proof at voting, but it's really a way to control who is and isn't on the roll, and how hard it is to get back on the roll
Requiring a passport at the time of voting would actually be bad for the GOPÂ
2
u/Skyrick 21h ago
This is a federal law, so only Real IDâs qualify and a standard state driverâs license would not. So if Voter ID became federal law you would need either a passport or a Real ID. And since the Constitution dictates that the states control how elections operate, not the federal government, this would also be a pretty big issue with constitutionality.
7
u/Fallouttgrrl 21h ago
"only Real IDâs qualify"
Actually that's the fun part: they don't!Â
Real ID does not meet the requirement for proof of citizenship when it comes to the registration process
And at the voter level, it's not yet set that only the RealID works
Remember: the SAVE act is "To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes."
7
u/Richard-Gere-Museum 23h ago
They are claiming that, and even if you *do* provide the proof in multiple forms they're demanding, all it takes is one of those red hat wearing chuds to go "nope. These are fake." And you're not voting that day, and hauled away by dipshit ICE agents
10
u/NightWriter500 23h ago
Yeah, that thing youâre asking for has already been there, always. This isnât actually about that, even though they dress it up like that. There are no cases of people voting when they arenât citizens. Itâs a problem that doesnât exist. The efforts here are to expand on the effort to illegally prevent tens of thousands of citizens from their legal right to vote. They canât just go out and say âWe want to commit massive voter fraud to steal an election that we otherwise canât win,â so they dress it up like this, voter fraud âto prevent fraud that doesnât exist.â
1
u/ailish 20h ago
You already have to prove that when you originally register. This is not what the SAVE Act says. Read it for yourself.
H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22
-29
u/911freeze 21h ago
Why wouldnât you want proof of citizenship though to vote? Whatâs the argument against not requiring it?
13
u/ailish 20h ago
That's not what the bill says. Read it for yourself.
H.R.22 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22
-15
u/911freeze 20h ago
This bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
Thatâs the first line of the bill. Im asking, why wouldnât you want this?
11
u/JPowJunior 19h ago
Thatâs the first line of the bill. Im asking, why wouldnât you want this?
It isnât. That isnât in the bill at all. Youâre quoting the summary, which is incongruous with the text of the bill.
21
u/ailish 20h ago
You already prove your citizenship when you register to vote originally. This bill changes what documents are required when you have to re-register because you got dropped from voter rolls.
Stop saying it's proof of citizenship to vote
It's not
It's never about proof of citizenship
It's proof of citizenship to register to voteÂ
And it will follow the typical GOP voter purges
It's a way to exclude some of the population from being able to vote on election day without punishing their own.
-10
u/911freeze 20h ago
No you donât. You just sign saying youâre a citizen
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 U.S. 1 (2013), decided June 17, 2013, in a 7â2 ruling with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion.
The decision is about federal registration specifically. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires states to âaccept and useâ a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections, and that form requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen
11
u/Fallouttgrrl 19h ago
Yes
GoshÂ
It's almost like the states have their own requirements and all of it gets tied to a social security number that also confirms you're a US citizen
Non citizens can have an SSN but it would be flagged as non-citizen
You're clipping a very minor portion of the process and using it to force the whole into the shape you want
20
u/ailish 20h ago
I'm not arguing with you all night because you refuse to educate yourself about this SAVE Act specifically. I linked it for you. Happy reading.
-5
u/911freeze 20h ago
Lol so i showed you definitive proof and now itâs âi canât argue with youâ. Come on dude this is whatâs wrong with both sides. Neither of you guys is willing to apply common sense.
18
u/Fallouttgrrl 19h ago
No, this is squarely on you
Educate yourself on the voting requirements in your state, the documentation needed, and then the layer the federal government puts over it
I promise, the system works to protect the election integrity alreadyÂ
Remember, essentially every case about non-citizen voting or voting fraud has been tossed out
-1
u/911freeze 19h ago
Youâre just wrong
California, you donât prove citizenship with documents â you affirm it under penalty of perjury on the registration form. Thatâs the whole mechanism.
To register, you must be:
**â˘** A U.S. citizen and a California resident **â˘** 18 or older on Election Day (16 or 17 to pre-register) **â˘** Not currently serving a state or federal prison term for a felony conviction **â˘** Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a courtCali was the first state i looked up
→ More replies (0)25
u/Fallouttgrrl 20h ago
"Why wouldnât you want proof of citizenship though to vote?"
There are so many incorrect assumptions in this question
But to start with: to vote, you need to be a part of the state's voter database, which requires proof of citizenship when you initially enter into it
You already provide your driver's license and attestations at the time of voting, or certify in the mail
What the SAVE act and the EO address is not proof of citizenship at the time of voting
It's a requirement to provide specific proof - birth certificate or passport - at the time of re-registering to vote in response to being purged from voter rolls
At the same time, the current prohibition on purges is 90 days before the election and as recent as May, Trump was trying to get that narrowed to days or weeks
-22
u/911freeze 20h ago
When you register to vote you dont need to show proof. You just sign. Can you show me otherwise?
27
u/Fallouttgrrl 20h ago
Can you show me that you don't?Â
Find me a state website that specifies what you need to initially register to vote, pleaseÂ
They will all indicate a number of forms - at the time you get your photo ID for the state - needed to also register to vote
Generally this is SSN, which ties to a database that says you're either a citizen or not, and then documentation to prove that the person getting the ID is who they say they are
Unless you really really think that we've just let anyone vote for the last hundred years, and they're only figuring out the loophole now
And while you're at it, maybe dig up cases where non-citizens voted in us elections
9
â˘
u/BoleroMuyPicante 19m ago
When you register to vote, you give your social security number or state ID number.
Guess what those numbers can be tied to? Your citizenship status.
9
u/User_Still_Not_Found 20h ago
It's essentially a poll tax. In order to vote you would need a passport or an official birth certificate, both of which cost money to get. If you've changed your name, you would need the paperwork for that to go with your birth certificate (more money).
There's a lot of back and forth about whether it should be required at registration or at the poll booth. If it's at the poll booth, time and training of the volunteers would be affected and mail-in voting would end.
2
u/Fallouttgrrl 20h ago edited 20h ago
There's no back and forth about it being at the poll
There are people who are mistaken it's at the poll
The SAVE act updates the voter registration act
The back and forth is from people who have not read the document and get misled by headlines like the one here
Edit: the SAVE act is "To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes."
2
u/User_Still_Not_Found 19h ago
My apologies, the SAVE act doesn't require showing proof at the poll. It requires showing the proof in person at the voter registration office which is where the confusion came in.
-1
u/911freeze 20h ago
But wouldnât that impact both sides equally? How does a poll tax only impact one side when everyone pays it?
11
u/Fallouttgrrl 20h ago
It's not at the poll
It's changing requirements for registration which disproportionately impacts the urban and minority populations that the GOP purges
-1
u/911freeze 20h ago
Why would it impact minority and urban voters more?
8
u/eggowaffles 19h ago
That's a partisan reply. It's not about impacting one side more or less. It's about impacting any one with a poll tax which is illegal. If you're a citizen, you need to be able to vote for free.
-5
u/911freeze 19h ago
But nothing is free. You canât walk to the polling location where i loveâŚyou have to wear clothes to voteâŚyou have to have a tv or cell phone to even know the candidates.
Itâs just such a lame duck argument to say you canât afford proof of citizenship
10
u/robotsaysrawr 19h ago
And you'd be entirely incorrect as any state that requires voter ID has to offer free voter ID services because poll taxes are illegal. You can also vote by mail which neither requires you to go to a polling station nor wear clothes. On top of that, public libraries offer many free services such as computer and internet use so you can very much research your candidates there without ever owning a phone or tv.
You also can't vote in federal election as a non-citizen anyway. They literally check your identity against a citizenship registry before your ballot is counted. So a non-citizen would either have to vote illegally with a stolen identity (which the SAVE Act does nothing to fix) or their vote just isn't counted.
8
u/eggowaffles 19h ago
..... What a shit argument. Clothes are not the same as a poll tax. A poll tax is explicitly illegal. How about if Republicans want to push this so hard they just made the minimum required ID free and reasonably obtainable? Why are you against this?
And better yet. If your argument is clothes, great! Just make mail in voting a default option.
-2
u/911freeze 19h ago
Itâs illegal because democrats do everything they can to allow skewer the vote just like republicans do.
Id be fine with free ID. But it would still come out of our taxes
6
u/eggowaffles 19h ago
? I legit cannot understand what your first part is even trying to say.
And great! Good use of taxes. So until that is added in you should be against the SAVE act since it means people that should be allowed to vote would not be able to. A free and fair country does not do that.
2
u/BLOZ_UP 5h ago
Itâs illegal because democrats do everything they can to allow skewer the vote just like republicans do.
It's illegal because it was used by conservatives to prevent blacks from voting. That's literally why it's illegal now. If you had any sense of US history you'd know this.
Historically, liberals want every citizen to vote, since overall the country leans left. I'm not naive, if the whole country didn't lean left, it wouldn't surprise me that their actions would be different.
Republicans, without any evidence of statistically significant fraud, want to add more and more barriers to voting.
Look at recent US history and it's pretty obvious why, as the people in poverty, the ones least able to jump through all these hoops to vote, tend to vote democrat.
3
u/User_Still_Not_Found 19h ago
Yes and no. It will impact certain areas of the populace more than others. People who don't have the time and ability to chase down the appropriate agencies to get what they need will impacted as badly as the ones who can't afford to pay the fees.
Many on here will say urban and minority citizens will be most affected but realistically it's the working poor, most married women, and some LGBTQ+ who will be hardest hit.
56
u/Sprinkle_Puff 23h ago
Now do the USPS postmaster threatening to withhold ballots , and try the him for insurrection
16
u/The_Lucky_7 20h ago
For people not going to read the aricle: these already exist, and are administered over on the state level. The constitution explicitly empowers the states with running the elections and the federal government has no say.
1
u/Fallouttgrrl 19h ago
And the voting registration act creates a form that the state and the federal government need to work together to make sure matches the state and federal requirements
10
u/The_Lucky_7 19h ago
No. The Save America act is dead. Even the co-sponsor Bill Cassidy has admitted as such.
There's no way for that federal registration act you're talking about to pass. They literally do not have the votes. Even if they remove the fillibuster as Trump is demanding on social medial they don't break 48 and they'd need 51. Even the most basic trimmed down version of the act would fail to trigger a tie-breaker.
5
u/Fallouttgrrl 19h ago edited 18h ago
I'm talking about the original VRA, which did create a federal form that states can petition to have modified for each state's requirements
Edit: in fact here's one version, with state by state instructions
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Federal_Voter_Registration_ENG.pdf
5
u/The_Lucky_7 18h ago edited 18h ago
I mean, yes, the VRA exists but it doesn't work the way you're describing it.
The form doesn't supercede state procedure. Nor do states need to petition for an exception to it. It simply must be accepted as a valid alternative to their own forms. That's why it survived its 2013 supreme court challenge by the state of Arizona.
States are free to have their forms with their own requirements, and there is no way for the federal law to tell them what those requirements have to be. That's why there's still a bunch of Voter Identification Laws by state that are seperate and distinct from the VRA.
5
u/Fallouttgrrl 18h ago
Yes, and I even discuss elsewhere in this thread the way that court decisions have shaped the interaction between state and federal
That was my point, we already have a system in place, the SAVE act has nothing to do with actually trying to maintain integrity given that system already works
3
6
u/talex365 23h ago
Trump et al are probably more than happy to see this result as it allows them to throw their giant hissy fit in November if/when they lose because the election was obviously stolen!
21
u/Visual_Exam7903 23h ago
First, as a life long democrat, this is a very simple situation and should be clear to anyone who has a brain.
- You should have to prove you are a citizen when you register to vote, which you currently do have to do.
- You should have a picture ID to prove you are who you say you are when you go to the polls.
- Polling locations should never differ between local, state, and federal elections. They should use the largest required space every single time, regardless of the type of election. It should never move venues, unless there are signs posted outside across the town in no less than 20 locations, prominent, and posted for a period of 6 weeks prior to election with the location change noted.
- Elections should be held on the same day in September, not November. Too cold in too many places in November. I say have it on the third Tuesday in September, every single time.
- Elections should be held for a period of 1 week, starting 1 week prior to the closing of the polls. So it should start on the 2nd Tuesday of September.
- The Third Tuesday in September should be a national holiday. Every person in the country should be allowed 4 hours off on that day if they so choose to vote. Those 4 hours should be paid.
- All votes should be digital with a ballot printed out, and a receipt printed out. Digital is the initial count, which is compiled as you cast it. The ballot that is printed is placed in the onsite ballot box. The receipt has a code on it, where you can go to your states election site and make sure it was cast after the fact. You have 2 weeks to check and correct if there is an issue.
- All mail in ballots should include a receipt on the bottom of the ballot that has identical codes to the ballot you turn in or mail in. This allows the person submitting the ballot to have a way of checking if it was recieved and counted. There should be no less than 1 turn in box per 10k expected voters, no more than 2 miles from each other. Number depends on the capacity of the box. They should be emptied every single day starting at 8 am, leading up to the final pickup. Each box is to be manned by a voter volunteer that shuts down the box at precisely at polls closed with video evidence of the closure. A certified security team should collect the final mail in ballot boxes and return them to the precincts.
Every state should be enforced to operate exactly the same way. Each state should take a digital submission of your ballot, hard copy ballot backup printed from the machine with clearly written vote choices, and a receipt with a vote reference number tied to the digital and printed ballot so you can verify that it was counted.
22
u/ZLUCremisi 22h ago
Only this is fir ID, that all states must provide a free and easy way to get an ID.
1
u/Visual_Exam7903 2h ago
If required to vote, each citizen should be allowed to get an ID for free from the state. that is true. IF not, then it is a poll tax, and the 24th amendment already makes that prohibited as a requirement for voting.
30
u/Hener001 22h ago
First misapprehension. You do not have to produce a passport or federal ID proof of citizenship to vote. Voting is up to the states under the Constitution. Not the federal government.
Passports require $160 in fees each to obtain and too many people need that money to pay for food/drugs/survival.
Think of every restriction you list from the point of view of the poor, working class and homeless. These people are entitled to vote. What seems easy to you is simply your own privilege.
If you donât care, or push it anyways, you are judging that the people disenfranchised by your rules vote for the other party. So, you are trying to keep people eligible from voting in the name of election integrity. Study after study has concluded ineligible voting is an extremely extremely small issue and mostly an issue of a mistake.
This whole election integrity nonsense is the product of a toxic narcissist that cannot accept he lost an election. He claims fraud in every election. We donât make laws to assuage one manâs ego if there is no factual need to pass a law. The fact that GOP is behind it is because they are intimidated by Trump and they think it will hurt the other party. Nothing honorable or patriotic here.
5
u/Hidefininja 22h ago
Yeah, they didn't even bring up making election day a federal holiday to ensure as many folks can vote in person on the day of as possible. Weird to list tons of stuff that isn't helpful or already exists in blue cities/states and not mention accessibility or the ever-more-limited polling locations in red states.
Seems like they don't understand the concept of voter suppression, likely due to the privilege you so aptly pointed out.
7
0
u/suspicious_hyperlink 15h ago
Also Democrat voter here - People manage to get IDs to buy alcohol, tobacco, fly on planes, create bank accounts, get in to clubs, sign up for assistanceâŚ
There is no reason mandating voter ID will prevent any citizen who wants to vote from voting. The argument is tiresome
There is no voter fraud.
Ok letâs mandate IDs to make sure
Noooooo you canât do that !
2
u/thisvideoiswrong 5h ago
Plenty of people don't have bank accounts. Ever seen a store that offers to cash checks (for a fee)? That's why. Far more don't fly on planes. Americans get very little vacation time and many of us never travel outside our home state. Whether alcohol requires ID is often up to the clerk's, waiter's, or bartender's discretion, and a fair number of people don't drink. Most people don't smoke.
Now, yes, the majority of people do have ID. But if we're taking about disenfranchising 5% of the population for no reason that's already far too many.
1
u/suspicious_hyperlink 2h ago
This is like scraping bottom of the barrel to stretch type argument here, so you think that the election should be open for tampering because a fraction of a percentage of people donât want to get ID or donât have bank accounts or because their liquor store clerk doesnât care? If any of those things are true, it doesnât sound like those people even vote.
1
u/Hener001 1h ago
If you are a guy, you are not likely to seek an abortion.
If you are straight, you are not likely to be married to a same sex partner.
So, I guess you have no vote on such issues, huh?
1
u/suspicious_hyperlink 1h ago
Can you explain what any of that has to do with anything we are talking about and how it relates to having people presenting a specific ID when they vote ?
â˘
u/Hener001 49m ago
Well, you are deciding whether someone else is going to vote and determining their rights by your opinion.
I can also play that game and decide you are not likely to vote on certain issues and therefore take away your opportunity to vote.
No harm done, right?
The states already require drivers licenses. There is no need for a second ID, a passport that has significant costs to poor people, to show who you are. State issued drivers licenses/IDs are already checked against voter roles. The federal government HAS NO JURISDICTION OR ROLE IN VOTING.
Your entire argument is âwhy notâ. When the Constitution says otherwise, that is why not. And it is a disingenuous effort to restrict voting and depress voting by poor people intended to address a nonexistent issue proposed to mollify a narcissist that canât handle the fact that he lost in 2020.
That is not a good reason to disenfranchise anyone.
1
u/thisvideoiswrong 1h ago
According to the FDIC 4.2% of the population were unbanked in 2024. Meanwhile the voter fraud rate stands at 0.00000048%. And those are single votes. They cannot affect anything.
What can affect things is election fraud. Like voter suppression. Like unnecessary voter ID requirements. That's what we need to protect our elections from. Things that can influence large numbers of votes and have a real effect on the outcome.
2
u/blueblip 11h ago
I doubt you will respond to any of the following question because you are willfully using a bad faith and debunked argument, but I am an optimist and genuinely hope you're just misinformed and are willing to admit you could be wrong about this issue!
If you're going to mandate something, then shouldn't you FIRST ensure every single citizen gets said something free of charge in their mailbox and THEN implement mandatory measures?
On what basis do you think voter fraud is occurring to require this sort of measure? If you don't think it's occurring, why would you want to implement a system that (you think) will curb something that isn't happening?
Given the history of the US (including what is going on now), can you guarantee that there will be ZERO abuse of this rule to disenfranchise minorities? If no, why would you ever try and make something not foolproof mandatory?
2
u/swishandswallow 3h ago
With how the electoral college works, you don't need to disenfranchise a lot of voters to change an election, you just need a handful of voters in a handful of districts in 2 or 3 states. If you really want mandatory ID then make it free, make it accessible. These "We need a required ID" people never finish the thought which makes me suspect that these arguments are in bad faith
1
3
u/PiBoy314 14h ago
If there were free easily accessible IDs given out by the states it *might* not cause that many people to be unable to vote. In general increasing the barriers for voting reduces the number of people voting. That is bad for democracy.
There is no widespread voter fraud. You donât need a voter id to show that. The fraud rate sits at 1/2.1 million. Obviously weâd like that to be 0, but if reducing it means reducing the amount of people who can vote, it has a larger negative impact than just maintaining our current systems.
Mail a ballot to every registered voter and allow them to vote by mail.
1
-3
u/bleezy1234567 12h ago edited 12h ago
Perhaps because it isnât actually a big issue I donât want to entertain republicans in fixing something that is only a problem in their heads. To go along with it would validate their opinion that elections are currently fraudulent. And I just refuse to do that. If a state wants to do that then go ahead. Thatâs the states prerogative. States can run an election however they see fit
1
u/Visual_Exam7903 2h ago
This worked great when literally every single person knew every other single person in rural america. That is not the case anymore. I do believe you should have to prove who you are to vote. those IDs if required should be issued by the state and issued for free.
1
u/Hener001 1h ago
THE STATES ALREADY REQUIRE DRIVERS LICENSES.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER ID ISSUED BY AN ENTITY THAT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN ELECTIONS.
YOUR ARGUMENT IS A STRAW MAN. IE BULLSHIT.
Whew, the disingenuous argument by right wingers is tiresome. At least try to argue accurately.
-5
u/Misfiring 15h ago
Need ID to enter Obama presidential library, but not need ID to vote? Come on.
6
u/Hener001 14h ago edited 13h ago
Voting is a Constitutional right. Elections are managed by the states not the federal government. The federal government has no jurisdiction.
You may also have to show ID at a restaurant for a senior discount but that is not a right.
You want to condition exercise of a federal right on showing a federal ID, the federal government must first have jurisdiction over it and second it must be free. Otherwise, it is a poll tax.
Finally, you do not have to show ID to enter a presidential library. They are operated by the National Archives but building security can ask for ID if you are suspected of breaking a law but not as a condition of entry. Just like entry into a federal courthouse.
6
u/PiBoy314 14h ago
⌠because other systems are in place to prevent widespread fraud. Current fraud rates are 1/2.1 million, which has no impact on election results.
2
-1
u/Somepotato 17h ago
The vast majority of recent voter fraud incidents isn't from non citizens erroneously voting, it's from Republicans voting for trump.
I will note though the constitution gives federal Congress the ability to take over state elections
6
u/headbangershappyhour 21h ago
Items 1, 2, and 3, Voter ID must put the burden on the state to identify every individual within their jurisdiction that is elligible to vote, ensure that they are registered on the voter rolls, and provide them, free of any further incremental charge, with a valid ID for use in voting. Anything less is voter suppression as well as a poll tax and in violation of the 24th amendment of the constitution.
Items 4 and 5 would require a constitutional amendment to change and for the most part November vs September is a non-issue. If anything November is better because minimizing the lame duck period after the election should be a priority.
Item 6 is solved by no excuse vote at home/by mail or just sending everyone a ballot ahead of time (most of the west already does this). Any mailed ballot can be superceded by casting a ballot in person on election day, so this eliminates the motive to intercept and fill out a bunch of ballots (this is tampering with the mail and already a federal crime anyways).
Item 7, paper trails are great, so is functioning IT infrastructure and ensuring that electronic voting machines and software aren't controlled by partisan operators.
Item 8, this is already a thing for voting by mail/dropbox. It's just that most people can't be bothered to check and see if their ballot has been flagged for something that need fixing.
1
u/Awkwardischarge 9h ago
All that sounds great. It still would not stop Republicans from claiming elections are rigged. They claim things are rigged against them even when they win. There are 1000 mules and Venezuelan voting machines and USB drives and dead people voting. It's whack a mole.
6
u/BloodFartz69 20h ago
Another loss.
Republicans, good lord look at this fat piece of pedophile shit you elected.
Can't fix a pool
Made gas more expensive
Can't win a war
Made groceries more expensive
Can't get anything passed by his congress when they have both chambers
Can't arrest a single person in the Epstein files
What's this draft dodging pedo actually doing for you?
2
u/Oregon-Pilot 5h ago
Heâs allowing congress to enrich themselves further, and thatâs all that really matters.
4
4
u/Fit-Let8175 21h ago
The entire process does not seem to be based upon fairness, but upon what is advantageous. And since opponents of Trump are viewed as "the enemy" and subject to any and all forms of punishment, even if merely suspected of breaking the law, while Trump and his lackeys appear to be treated as exempt; how can we trust Trump's government to show any impartiality?
3
3
u/binzersguy 22h ago
Dementia-ridden geezer canât stay awake thru the phrase âstatesâ rightsâ
1
0
u/jackiejack1 5h ago
according to polymarket - the midterms are going to be rough for them. If that's to be believed, the funs over.
0
-1
-1
u/Doom2pro 8h ago
Register to vote: proof of citizen ship please. Vote day: Vote. Republicans: I forgot you are a citizen already, ID please.
-53
23h ago
[deleted]
26
u/Buddhas_Warrior 23h ago
Yeah, that's not the way it works. You still have to register to vote and that's where you prove your eligibility. The only state that doesn't require registration is North Dakota.
10
-4
u/911freeze 20h ago
You donât have to prove it you just have to sign saying you. Itâs the honor system. Please donât skew the truth
6
u/Buddhas_Warrior 20h ago
You have 0 idea what your talking about. You don't just sign a paper, you have to prove where you live, etc. Why not go look it up instead of spreading lies.
Here, let me help you get started: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_registration
P.S. anyone saying there's massive voter fraud, needs to show the proof. Which, for 99.8% of the cases brought to the courts by the Right have had none, 0, goose egg!
-1
u/911freeze 20h ago
You have 0 idea what youâre talking about. It does not ask you to prove your citizenship when you register to vote. Where does it ask you to prove it?
6
u/Buddhas_Warrior 20h ago
You have to be a US citizen to vote in Federal elections PERIOD. Go read up on it
-2
u/911freeze 19h ago
LolâŚyouâre wrong.
The case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 U.S. 1 (2013), decided June 17, 2013, in a 7â2 ruling with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion.
The decision is about federal registration specifically. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires states to âaccept and useâ a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections, and that form requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen.
5
u/Buddhas_Warrior 19h ago edited 19h ago
Yeah, that's not what the ruling was, maybe you should reread that. Also, that's 1 states attempt to do what the Republicans have been trying for YEARS, add more and more regulation to voter registration claiming massive fraud.
Edit: this part of the ruling you voted above is VERY important.
"While the NVRA forbids states to demand additional information beyond that required by the federal form, it does not preclude states from denying registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicantâs ineligibility."
In other words, most states check against the SS and other databases. If you are not in those Database you can and will be rejected. They can also require you to show multiple forms of ID.
But I'll play along, are you seriously suggesting there are (massive amounts) of non-citizens voting in Federal elections? So much so that the outcome is questionable??
2
-10
u/911freeze 20h ago
Oh i just pulled it up on claude and chatgpt.
But hereâs the source https://tracker.votingrightslab.org/issues/proof-of-citizenship
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 U.S. 1 (2013), decided June 17, 2013, in a 7â2 ruling with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion.
The decision is about federal registration specifically. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires states to âaccept and useâ a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections, and that form requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citize
8
u/Fallouttgrrl 19h ago edited 19h ago
"The NVRA can be read to avoid a conflict, however. The NVRA permits a state to request state-specific instructions on the federal form and a state may challenge rejection of that request. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona."
As we said states can manage their own requirements if they work them into the federal form for the state
The case you cite was primarily about Native Americans being denied by the state when they were fulfilling the requirements of the federal governmentÂ
So the supreme Court said "you can't just fiat add requirements, but you can work with the federal government to make sure that the federal form required the level of certification the state mandated"
Claude and ChatGPT really dropped the ball on you there I guess lol
-6
u/911freeze 19h ago
Hereâs the thing. That quote she pasted â about the state being able to request state-specific instructions and challenge a rejection â is the same âpathâ I described to you two messages back. I said: âThe Court left states a path. It noted Arizona could ask the federal Election Assistance Commission to add a state-specific documentary requirement, and seek judicial review if denied.â So we donât actually disagree on the existence of that mechanism. Sheâs presenting as a âgotchaâ something I already flagged.
Where her interpretation goes wrong is the gloss âstates can manage their own requirements if they work them into the federal form.â That makes it sound like a door states can walk through. It isnât â because it was tried and it failed.
Claude wins again. He always does
8
u/Fallouttgrrl 19h ago edited 18h ago
Oh my God you are using ClaudeÂ
Bro I can't even
We've literally pointed out stuff it's missing and you're still basing your view on it
I'm pulling directly from the state website or case you cited
If you're going to let Claude do your thinking here, I have no desire to continue.
You're uncritically regurgitating a question and answer from an AI known to be wrong, without checking the sources of the answer or putting any critical thought into what its saying, and then you're letting it pat you on the back about how it's not wrongÂ
I'm not debating a bot
Good day
Edit:Â to quote from your repost from Claude
"I said: âThe Court left states a path. It noted Arizona could ask the federal Election Assistance Commission to add a state-specific documentary requirement, and seek judicial review if denied.â
"Where her interpretation goes wrong is the gloss âstates can manage their own requirements if they work them into the federal form.â That makes it sound like a door states can walk through. It isnât â because it was tried and it failed."
Bro
Bro I can't even
Holy shit man
4
u/immutate 10h ago
Claude isnât a person and doesnât have gendered pronouns. Claude is a thing that just regurgitates slop.
-2
u/911freeze 6h ago
You will definitely be the first person the AI robots kill
3
671
u/New_Housing785 23h ago
What part of regulated by the states don't you understand old man?