Trump signs order requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order requiring people to provide proof of American citizenship when they register to vote and demanding that all ballots be reviewed by Election Day.
The order requires government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship on its voter registration forms, directs the attorney general to enter into information-sharing agreements with state election officials to identify cases of election fraud or other election law violations and conditions federal election-related funds on states complying with federal election integrity measures.
"There are other steps that we will be taking in the coming weeks," Trump said just before signing the order. "We think we'll be able to end up getting fair elections."
"It's an honor to sign this one," he added. "I sign all of them, but to sign this one is a great honor."
The U.S. has failed "to enforce basic and necessary election protections," the order states.
Election experts immediately criticized the move, saying it would disenfranchise millions of voters.
"This executive order would block tens of millions of American citizens from voting," the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University wrote on X. "Presidents have no authority to do this. This order, like the SAVE Act now before Congress, would hurt voters and suppress the vote."
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, known as the SAVE Act, is a bill being pushed by Republicans that would make sweeping changes to voter registration, including requiring voters to present documents proving U.S. citizenship.
Documentary proof of citizenship includes a U.S. passport, a REAL ID or military, state or federally-issued identification indicating American citizenship.
"Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic," the order states. " Yet the United States has not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that, for example, prohibit States from counting ballots received after Election Day or prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote."
Under the terms of the order, Trump directed the Election Assistance Commission to change the federal voter registration form to require government-issued proof of citizenship.
The order also attempts to bar states from counting mail ballots election officials receive after Election Day.Meh, I like the idea of restrictions on who can and cannot vote, but I'd rather it be left to a more meritocratic restriction.
By this specifically, I mean I would like to see voting limited by Intelligence Quotient (minimum 100), registration to vote being mandatory at 18 years-old or high school graduation whichever comes first, and the selective service portion of registration being separate from voter registration until the military brings modern reforms to its standards and physical training. These restrictions would first require you to prove citizenship just to get to the aptitude testing.
There is no documentation nor restriction on identification that can't be bypassed by human interference, money, or fraud. Thus, I'd also suggest that the alternate route to the right to vote for low IQ and confirmed non-citizens could be obtained via military enlistment and completion of a 2 to 4-year contract for those who cannot fit the intelligence quotient standards. This would lower incidents of illegal bypass and benefit the country as a whole.
All IQ testing would be administered at your local schools prior to graduation, or upon report by the school that the individual has turned 18 prior to graduation. For those who become naturalized citizens as adults beyond high school age, any local MEPS should offer the necessary confirmation and testing in a separate wing where recruiters may also hound them.
Totally dystopian, but hey, I feel like it matches the path of the times anyways.No citizen is barred from voting by their color under my facetious suggestion, quite the opposite.
Individuals from all around the world, from all colors, creeds, ethnicity, races, backgrounds, IQs, etc. would be invited to try for the opportunity to earn their vote. Either by way of IQ, or by way of service to the nation in which they'd like to influence politics. We already offer the military avenue, the infrastructure is already there for it and put into successful practice for many foreigners wishing to bring their entire family to the country.
Yes, I have to depart from you here. I want universal suffrage for all those citizens over the age of 18. Restricting access to the ballot is a conservative trick their knowing that the fewer people that vote the more chances that they win.
The vote is the only tool available to restrain the power of the oligarchs and the conservatives know that.ID is one of the simplest ways to fix our elections...
This goes directly to what you suggest, but in a much simpler way...
Productive citizens will have multiple Federal IDs... they will have a driver's license, along with a passport or TWIC card or CAC card or DBIDS or something equivalent.
Illegal Migrants, felons/hardened criminals, people who are so incapable of traversing society today will not... or at least, they will not have legitimate/legal IDs.
The efforts of Democrats to bypass what every other nation demands... that you prove who you are... vote in person (unless proven hardships exist) and provide ID... is how Democrats maintain their control and steal elections in States like CA and NY today.Did you know that Indigenous people could well be disqualified by the latest of these Trump schemes?
These “people” who cannot traversing society are sometimes elderly and without the means of travel.
But of course that is what the Republicans want, to disenfranchise all their opponents. Eliminate the ability to vote is what the oligarchs want.
The theft of elections in California and New York is just more conjecture on your part lacking any real evidence.American Indians cannot get a "real" drivers license/ID? You know - the one that will soon be necessary to fly in this country? That's news to me.
What makes you think that?Conservatives are such hypocrites, they fought federal guidance on application of the franchise when it was to their advantage saying that the authority should lie with the states as stated in the Constitution. But now they want Washington and Trump to control this matter.
So, Einstein, what does it take to get a drivers license or real id? Does that not require proof of citizenship? There not just going to give it to you, you know….
=======
What we're watching: Many Indigenous elders struggle to prove they were born here in the first place, Navajo Nation Councilwoman Eugenia Charles-Newton noted in a recent Facebook video.
"Some of our elders — they were born at home. It was hard for them to get an ID. It's hard for them to get documents that prove they were born at home, in a hogan," she explained.
====
You can bet that Trump will be snarled in litigation regarding this….."So, Einstein, what does it take to get a drivers license or real id? Does that not require proof of citizenship?"
No it doesn't. People here from other countries get driver's licenses daily.
From the US Gov. website.
"If you are a citizen of another country and are living permanently in the U.S., you may be eligible to apply for a driver's license from the state where you live.
The residency requirement for obtaining a U.S. driver's license is different in each state.
Contact your state department of motor vehicles to check the ID requirements and find out how to apply for a license.
A state driver's license allows you to drive anywhere in the U.S."Well, Mike from your comment, since people from other countries can get a drivers license, how is it proof of citizenship? What definitive documents verify that the individual who votes is an American citizen? If you want a passport you have to present proof that you are an American citizen and the only documents that proves that without having to refer elsewhere is the Birth Certificate and there are many people that do not have one. So, what now? trumps scheme is to make it as difficult as possible for even citizens to vote. Technically under trump regime edict, I would need my birth certificate to indisputably prove myself born here as an American citizen.
Cred,
If you looked a little deeper you can see that driver's license given to foreign nationals have a designation on them that the holder of the driver's license is not a citizen. They could not used this to try and vote. It is right there on their driver's license. That is how it is in most states.
There are also states that permit illegal aliens driver's license. Why, I do not know. It makes absolutely no sense.
"Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have chosen to allow undocumented immigrants to get a driver’s license to increase public safety. They want to ensure that drivers meet the knowledge and skill requirements and have car insurance.
For example, undocumented California residents can now get a California driver’s license because of AB 60, or the Safe and Responsible Drivers Act. This law was passed in 2013 to reduce traffic accidents. These licenses are also known as AB 60 licenses.
The exact process for an undocumented immigrant to get a driver’s license depends on the state."The incidence of voter fraud is infinitesimally small. Folks here are focusing on only one small area of so-called fraud, but what about vote buying? How do we make sure that billionaires aren't literally paying people to vote on a specific manner?
Also, where is the attention to outdated voting systems? I've read many accounts that these systems can lead to errors that outweigh instances of actual voter fraud. But no attention to that?But you need a social security number to obtain a driver's license in California?
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-ed … er-ffdl-8/You don't have to be a citizen to obtain a social security number.
What noncitizens can apply for a Social
Security number?
In general, only noncitizens authorized by the USCIS to
work in the United States can get an SSN.And in Cal, you don't need an SS # to get a driver's license.Yes, as an asylum seeker awaiting your hearing in California, you can obtain a driver's license under Assembly Bill 60 (AB 60). This legislation allows California residents who cannot provide proof of legal presence in the United States to apply for a driver's license, provided they meet other requirements. THis is also true in some other sates.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-li … hatgpt.com
California
Colorado
Denver 7 Colorado News (KMGH)
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
New York
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
District of Columbia
Puerto Rico
+1
Under the president’s order, documentary proof of citizenship includes a passport, REAL ID-compliant identification, a military ID indicating citizenship status or a government-issued ID indicating citizenship status.
It's a shame any American citizen has a problem with such a common sense approach to voting. The only ones that I can see having a problem are the criminals who have control who don't want to get voted out by the people for their crimes... like in CA... where even when they demand a recall on the Governor, they can't get rid of him.Ken, what documents do you have to present to get a military ID? When I got mine, I needed a birth certificate. Don’t you conservatives always complain how anyone can get a drivers license? Are there not foreign nationals in our armed services with Military IDs?
You conservatives are simplifying things that are of far more significance than you let on.We all know why you don't like the requirement of ID to vote:
Credible research and investigation demonstrates fraud by voters at the polls is exceedingly rare.
The incidence of voter fraud has been studied numerous times. The consensus from credible research and investigation is that the rate of illegal voting is extremely rare, and the incidence of certain types of fraud – such as impersonating another voter – is virtually nonexistent.
All of the studies are here..
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ … aud-claims
The Save Act is simply an attempt at voter suppression.Just one example from your link:
"Two journalists authored an analysis for Arizona State University’s News21 “Voting Wars” project. They reviewed cases from five states “where politicians expressed concern about voter fraud” and found that no prosecutions were brought for voter impersonation."
It apparently is intended to skip by the simple fact that no prosecutions were brought because no one found any. And that no one found any because they didn't look. After all, how do you look at a ballot, or a computer record of a vote, and prove who did it 10 years ago?
Here, another one for you:
"Levitt, who also authored The Truth About Voter Fraud and is now a professor at Loyala Law School, Los Angeles, reviewed allegations of fraud dating back to 2000. He identified 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast over that period."
Does this mean that over 1,000,000,000 votes were physically checked from 24 to 10 years ago, to determine exactly who placed the vote? I think not, which means the claim is bogus. It cannot, after all, be made without actually checking. On the other hand, if they only checked those votes alleged to have been fraudulent, and found only 31, that is a far, far cry from looking at a billion ballots.
How about answering the question I posed to you, Ken, not just send me some time worn graphic? Do you have an answer?
"Did you know that Indigenous people could well be disqualified by the latest of these Trump schemes?"
I don't believe this for a minute.
Provide some proof.
Mike--- This is a huge step in the right direction for election integrity. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote just makes sense—after all, you need ID for so many things in daily life, why shouldn’t it be required for something as important as choosing our leaders? Making sure ballots are reviewed by Election Day is also a smart move. The longer votes are left uncounted, the more room there is for confusion, errors, or even manipulation.
The critics crying "voter suppression" are ignoring the fact that legal citizens already have (or can easily get) the necessary documents. Instead of fighting against common-sense rules, they should focus on helping those who might need assistance getting their paperwork in order. The goal here isn’t to block anyone from voting—it’s to make sure elections are fair, secure, and only decided by actual U.S. citizens.
Trump signing this order just reinforces his commitment to keeping elections honest. It lines up with efforts like the SAVE Act, which pushes for even stronger voter verification nationwide. Sure, the usual crowd will challenge it in court, but at the end of the day, protecting our elections should be something everyone can get behind. If you need proof of citizenship to get a passport, why wouldn’t you need it to vote?Shar,
One state has taken it a step further. Wyoming now requires proof of citizenship for ALL voting. I consider this one down and 49 more to go for such an important change.
Wyoming enacts strict voter ID law requiring proof of citizenship
WYOMING – Voters in Wyoming will need to show proof of citizenship and residency to vote, as per a new law set to take effect in July. Governor Mark Gordon allowed the bill to become law without his signature, according to a press release from his team.
This law makes Wyoming the first state to require proof of citizenship for voter registration. It mandates that voters must prove residency in the state for at least 30 days, a requirement that may conflict with the Wyoming Constitution and federal law.
Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gehry expressed support for the law, stating, "Only United States citizens and Wyomingites should be voting in Wyoming elections." He added that the law is "key in supporting President Trump's federal work."
https://www.kulr8.com/news/wyoming-enac … f7001.html
This will be quickly challenged. The order is legally suspect. The constitution explicitly gives states and Congress the authority to set the rules for election and does not authorize the president to do so. Go figure?
This executive order, like all too many that we’ve seen before, is lawless and asserts all sorts of executive authority that trump most assuredly does not have.
Republicans have tried this one before. In a 7-2 decision in 2013, for example, SCOTUS said that Arizona could not require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.Actually, the SCOTUS ruled in 2024 that Arizona CAN require proof of citizenship for voting.
"The Republican National Committee had asked the court to put a pause on a lower court ruling against the 2022 law. And in a 5-4 decision, the high court granted part of that request, allowing Arizona to enforce — for now — a section that requires election officials to reject state voter registration forms that are submitted without an applicant’s proof of U.S. citizenship. That provision will remain in effect as an appeal proceeds."Court blocks Arizona’s laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote for president...
Two Arizona laws that restrict voting by people who don’t prove their U.S. citizenship are “unlawful measures of voter suppression,” the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
The appeals court on Tuesday upheld a 2023 decision from the U.S. District Court of Arizona that found many provisions of two 2022 Republican-backed laws unconstitutional. That includes one provision that prohibits voters who don’t prove citizenship from voting for president, and another that prohibits them from voting by mail.
The judges also found that the state must allow voters who don’t prove citizenship to vote in federal elections even if they use a state voter registration form. The U.S. Supreme Court in August had granted an emergency stay requiring the opposite, pending a final ruling from the 9th Circuit. That meant that election officials were outright rejecting state registration forms without proof of citizenship in the crucial period leading up to the November presidential election.
https://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2025/0 … h-circuit/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/ari … rcna194105Yeah, the SCOTUS ruled is was okay for the recent election and put it back down to the lower courts. Not surprised by the 9th Circuit court's ruling. They are the most liberal circuit court and the most overturned.
It will now go again to the Supreme Court. It is a much different mix than in 2013.Are you implying that the court was more liberal in 2013??
I don't get why voter ID requirements is even an issue.
The only reason I can think is that democrats love to cheat during elections. Why would anybody oppose such a thing?
Requiring voter ID is a common thing around the world. Mexico and Canada both require voter ID to vote in an election.
This is from the National Review
"The vast majority of countries require voter ID — usually photo ID — to prevent fraud and duplicate votes at the polls. Our neighbors do. Canada requires voter ID. Mexico’s “Credencial para Votar” has a hologram, a photo, and other information embedded in it, and it is impossible to effectively tamper with. Confidence in the integrity of elections has soared since its introduction in the 1990s.
The vast majority of countries require voter ID — usually photo ID — to prevent fraud and duplicate votes at the polls.
At a 2012 conference in Washington at which election officials from more than 60 countries met to observe the U.S. presidential election, most were astonished that so many U.S. states don’t require voter ID.
For the head of Libya’s national election commission, the method by which Americans vote is startling in that it depends so much on trust and the good faith of election officials and voters alike.
Polls have shown that voter-ID laws and similar measures enjoy great popular support all over the world. In the U.S., a comprehensive 2012 Washington Post poll found that 74 percent of respondents felt voters should present photo ID. Support crossed all demographic lines — 66 percent of independents, 60 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of African Americans, and 64 percent of Hispanics. The Post also asked if people felt the supporters and opponents of voter ID were acting out of genuine concern for fair elections or whether they were trying to gain some partisan advantage. Respondents said they thought the laws’ opponents were acting more out of partisanship than supporters were. “I think that party leaders have tried to make this a Republican versus Democrat issue,” former Democratic state representative Jon Brien, who shepherded Rhode Island’s 2011 voter-ID law through a Democratic legislature, told the Pew Center’s Stateline news service. “It’s not. It’s simply a good-government issue.”"The only reason I can think is that democrats love to cheat during elections."
You need look no further than that.
Paper ballots and voter ID make voter fraud negligible, very difficult to pull off... where mail in ballots in states (IE CA) where no ID is required make EVERY election in that state fraudulent... probably to the tune of millions of fraudulent votes."Paper ballots and voter ID make voter fraud negligible, very difficult to pull off..."
Voter fraud is already negligible."Voter fraud is already negligible."
Oh, good.
Then having voter ID and paper ballots shouldn't be an issue.
The method of verifying mail-in ballots should also be seriously upgraded.98 percent of all votes were cast on paper in the 2024 general election (based on data from Verified Voting and the Election Assistance Commission’s Election Administration and Voting Survey).
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ … er-ballots
The U.S. Constitution is clear: Article 1, Section 4 dictates that it is only states and Congress that can make or alter the “time, place, and manner” of holding federal elections. The president is bestowed with no such power under the Constitution or applicable statutory law. Yet another instance of trump pretending to be a king.“time, place, and manner” of holding federal elections"
I hope you realize none of that applies when it comes to requiring ID to vote like they do in the majority of countries around the world.
I believe if Mexico and Libya can successfully have people get IDs to vote in elections the United States can do the same.Each state sets its own voter ID rules.... Just the way the Constitution intended. And most require voters to bring identification to vote in person. Those states that do not need to show ID when they vote, have their identity verified when they register.
Research has been consistent over time that voter fraud is infinitesimally rare and almost never occurs on a scale that would affect an election outcome,” said Alice Clapman, senior counsel for voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice...
Trump's ridiculous, unconstitutional proclamation is simply a blatant effort to suppress voting.
Despite several documents being listed in the executive order, only a U.S. passport could be reliably used to prove an individual’s citizenship status. Just under half in this country have a current passport...
U.S. birth certificates, naturalization certificates, and tribal IDs are not explicitly mentioned in the executive order as documents that Americans could use to prove their citizenship status...
SCOTUS will easily toss this.
But have these fools really thought about how this would play out?? The consequences?
In seven states, fewer than one-third of citizens have a valid passport: West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. In West Virginia for example, 80 percent of U.S. citizens do not have a passport. Under the executive order, this means that about 80 percent of West Virginia citizens—1.4 million people—could not register to vote or update their voter registration information without acquiring a U.S. passport.
A passport cost $130... Do you also want blue States to fund the poor red states in obtaining a passport? How many folks are coming out of the hollers of West Virginia to go get a passport LOL?
Requiring passport possession for voter registration would disproportionately disenfranchise rural, working-class, and lower-income Americans.
OH WELL... This bunch really doesn't seem to think anything through do they?
Hi Mike, it does make one wonder why Dems (and like-minded) work so hard against fair voting practices, in particular, showing i.d., proof that you are who you say you are! Namely, a card-carrying legal citizen, properly registered to vote, in the United States of America.
Maybe we need to use Mexico and 60 other countries as examples as to how to get identification for voting.
I still don't see the problem of requiring people to provide identification for voting. Many other countries do this and I think the United States can do it as well.
Who doesn't have ID for voting? Illegal immigrants. This is all about democrats getting illegal immigrants to vote in elections.
In a fair election democrats never win. They MUST cheat. It's all they have.
One more reason why democrats popularity is at an all-time, record setting low and sinking.
Hey, democrats, you keep doing you.
Republicans will cheer you on at you do it.What exactly would they be providing in the form of identification that they are not already providing when they register to vote?
A photo i.d., Willow, which also shows their name and signature. Then there are no guessing games, nor playing of games.
You mean the same that they use to register to vote? What's the difference of signatures being matched on arrival, as well photo verification? All this shows up on the polling place computer screens already
You mean... why do people choose to commit fraud? I don't know, you would have to ask them.
An extra line of defense is always the best policy.Maga folks... You do realize that Trump is not asking for a simple piece of identification at the polling place? The SAVE Act would require all Americans to prove their citizenship when they vote.
Ken, Me too! --Between me and you --- I mean, who doesn't have a birth certificate? This kind of mindset just cracks me up. For all of you who don't have one, don't worry – the liberals have got your back. They think you need their help because, for some reason, you’ve never managed to get a birth certificate in your whole life. It's almost unbelievable!
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a crucial measure to ensure the integrity of our electoral process. With millions of undocumented migrants currently awaiting asylum hearings and some states issuing driver's licenses to non-citizens, it's imperative to implement stricter voter registration requirements. By mandating documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, the SAVE Act will help confirm that only eligible U.S. citizens participate in our elections. This initiative addresses potential vulnerabilities in our voting system, reducing the risk of fraud and enhancing public confidence in electoral outcomes. Requiring verifiable documentation at the time of registration is a reasonable and necessary step to protect the foundational principle of citizen-only voting. By implementing these measures, we can restore and strengthen trust in our democratic processes, ensuring that every vote cast is legitimate and reflective of the will of American citizens.
It's both sad and strange that some people believe we, as citizens, couldn't navigate proving our citizenship when ample proof is available. It's downright insulting to our intelligence.
From Committee on House Administration / Ranking member Joseph D Morelle
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) (H.R. 8281)
Section-By-Section
https://democrats-cha.house.gov/sites/e … RANDED.pdfYes Ma'am (?)
That's right!
It's about time!!
“Presidents are not granted authority over the Election Assistance Commission or elections, Morales-Doyle and other election law experts have pointed out in the hours since the order was signed.
“The president’s got almost no power over federal elections," said Justin Levitt, a constitutional law scholar at Loyola Law School. “As the senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights in the last administration, one of the things that was very clear is how little power the president has over federal elections — by design."
The Constitution gives Congress and the states power to regulate the "times, places and manner of holding elections."
Republicans in Congress have introduced a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement bill, called the SAVE Act. It would allow voters to use their birth certificates to prove their citizenship, though election officials and advocates warn it would still disenfranchise many eligible voters who do not have ready access to these documents.”
————
Can you say Executive Branch overreach? There are many people that do not have their birth certificates, what sort of disenfranchise trick is this?Similar "show your papers" requirements in Arizona and Kansas were struck down as unconstitutional. These current efforts will meet the same fate.
What happens to married women under this act? I see this hasn't been addressed at all.
The Center for American Progress estimates that more than 140 million citizens do not have a passport and that approximately 69 million women who changed their names after marriage may not have documents, such as a birth certificate, that match their current legal name.
As with everything else Trump attempts to do, this is not very well thought through at all... I'll give you one guess at which states contain the fewest number of passport holders LOL"Can you say Executive Branch overreach? There are many people that do not have their birth certificates, what sort of disenfranchise trick is this?" Cred
Requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote is not an overreach of the Executive Branch—quite the opposite. The SAVE Act is a legislative measure introduced by Congress, meaning it falls squarely within the powers of the Legislative Branch. If anything, executive overreach would be a president attempting to block or undermine such a law without constitutional grounds.
As for the claim that this would “disenfranchise” voters, let’s be honest—proving citizenship is a fundamental safeguard for election integrity. The vast majority of legal citizens have a birth certificate, and in the rare case they don’t, they can obtain one with relative ease. Is it even plausible to argue that most people don’t have a birth certificate, and that those without one would be incapable of getting a copy? That just doesn’t hold up. I must say, your statement makes little common sense.
If we require proof of identity for everyday activities like boarding a plane, opening a bank account, or even buying certain medications, why should voting—the foundation of our democratic process—be held to a lower standard?
The real question is: why should it be controversial to require proof of citizenship to vote in U.S. elections? Should non-citizens have the ability to influence our policies and leadership? Any argument against this requirement is ultimately an argument for weakening election security and opening the door to potential fraud. If ensuring only legal citizens vote is considered a “trick,” then what does that say about those who oppose it?"The vast majority of legal citizens have a birth certificate, and in the rare case they don’t, they can obtain one with relative ease."
I can obtain a number of birth certificates from just those around me with relative ease...
"What happens to married women under this act?"
When a woman get married,a marriage certifcate is issued,which shows hermaiden name and new name.
I understand Dems concerns,it will affect their election chances by eliminating fraud,but frankly they should be more concerned that they are concerned about that.
Having read the above replies,there is no valid arguement about this.
If someone is born in the USA,they will have a birth certificate, if someone becomes a citizen they will have a certificate.Okay so now we don't want just a birth certificate we want the birth certificate and the marriage certificate? I mean the passport combines those two items into one document but it cost $130...
Soooo.... I grab my sisters or my roommates or my cousins birth certificate, marriage certificate if applicable and show up to vote.... What's next? Saliva test at the polling place? Aren't the consequences the exact same for voter fraud currently and in the hypothetical I mentioned? Yes, yes they are.
The current election system already has measures in place to detect the vast majority of voter fraud, making additional requirements like birth certificates unnecessary. If I am married, my birth certificate does not match. But when voter fraud does occur, it is often due to administrative errors rather than intentional deception. Existing laws already require U.S. citizenship to vote, so the SAVE Act only adds bureaucratic hurdles without addressing a documented problem.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- … ng-rights/Two states now require ID to vote is all elections. Only 48 more to go.
"Wisconsin voters approve constitutional voter ID amendment
Wisconsin voters passed a constitutional amendment to enshrine voter ID laws with 60.3% support, securing its place in the state constitution.
Wisconsin voters have approved a constitutional amendment to enshrine the state’s voter ID requirement, according to an AP race call at 8:37 p.m. on April 1.
The amendment passed with 60.3% of the vote, or 482,591 ballots in favor, while 39.7%, or 318,236 voters, opposed it.
The amendment elevates Wisconsin’s photo ID requirement for voting from state law to constitutional status. The voter ID law, in place since 2011 and permanently implemented in 2016, will now be protected from potential court challenges.
The proposal, placed on the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature, was pitched by its supporters as a measure to enhance election security. Even without the amendment, the voter ID requirement would have remained in place as state law.
This measure was one of several decisions made by Wisconsin voters during the April 1 election, which also included the race for the state’s top education official.
https://www.wisn.com/article/wisconsin- … t/64357959
Democrats are on the WRONG side of this issue.
Their approval rating is still only 37%...lowest in 18 years. They might want to consider how Americans don't want what they're selling.
Related Discussions
- 29
Do We Need To Have Washington Dectating Voter Laws?
by Sharlee 4 years ago
The House will vote on this bill Wed, 3rd, 2021. Would appear the Federal Government wants its fingers in one more pie...Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement,...
- 39
Election Integrity 2024! What's happeing on the battle front?
by Tim Mitchell 13 months ago
‘They Are Miles Ahead’: Despite ‘Election Integrity’ Hype, GOP Could Be Walking Into 2024 Legal Buzzsaw by the Daily Caller (Mar 14, 2024)https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/14/repu … h8QW8SmTL0Phew! About a 4,000 word article or somewhere around a 16 minute read. I moved from a cup of coffee to...
- 562
Illegals Voting For Republicans
by American View 8 years ago
If all the I illegal Aliens said tomorrow they are voting Republican, would the Dems desire Voter ID cards, would they want the voter rolls updated, would they have backed Obama's amnesty for the young illegals?
- 22
Most Americans Want Voter ID
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I agree with voter ID. It seems that 80 percent of the nations want as well."Amid plenty of partisan rancor over election integrity and voter suppression, a new national poll indicates that most Americans support requiring voter identification to cast a ballot and easier access to early...
- 80
A Mention of Voter Roll Purges As Voter Suppression.
by ga anderson 3 years ago
Stumbling across a mention of Voter Roll purges, specifically the increasing frequency of voter roll purges as a method of voter suppression, prompted a question of "How?" A quick look-around found four primary reasons to purge: died, are imprisoned, have moved to another state, or become...
- 12
Biden Went Down To Georgia Y'All
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Biden shouted that if you disagree with him, "you’re George Wallace … If you don’t pass the laws he wants, you’re Bull Connor, and if you oppose giving Democrats untrammeled, one-party control of the country, well, you’re Jefferson Davis.” Does this sound a bit like --- Basket of...