With polling showing over 80 percent of Americans in favor of voter ID laws, it is hard to come up with reasons why you need an ID to board a plane but not vote in a federal election. That was particularly glaring this week when Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) required people to show an ID to attend his campaign events after opposing an ID requirement to vote. So if you want to hear Ossoff speak against voter ID, you will have to show your ID. Now Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has a rather bizarre argument: the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, if passed, would likely violate the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
CNN Host Kasie Hunt told Raskin that “Voter ID is supported by the majority of Americans. But there are Democrats on the Hill and you voted against this? Why not support voter ID?”
Raskin then had this curious response:
“… what’s wrong with the Save act? What’s wrong with it is that it might violate the 19th Amendment, which gives women the right to vote, because you’ve got to show that all of your different IDs match. So if you’re a woman who’s gotten married and you’ve changed your name to your husband’s name, but you’re so now your current name is different from your name at birth. Now you’ve got to go ahead and document that you need an affidavit explaining why. And why would we go to all of these, troubles in order to keep people from voting when none of the states that are actually running the elections are telling us that there’s any problem.”
In fact, under various voter ID laws, states can create systems to address issues such as different maiden names or name changes following a divorce, including requiring a standard attestation provided by the state. Nothing in the SAVE Act requires birth certificates be brought to polling places. It allows for the use of a signed attestation supplied by the state.
As for identification, various forms are allowed:
The legislation would require documentation that shows an individual was born in the U.S., including either:
- An ID that complies with the REAL ID Act and indicates the holder is a citizen;
- A passport;
- A military ID card and military record of service that shows a person was born in the U.S.;
- A government-issued photo ID that shows the person’s place of birth was in the U.S.;
- Other forms of government-issued photo ID, if they’re accompanied by a birth certificate, comparable document or naturalization certificate.
Now, on the 19th Amendment, Raskin’s argument is simply ridiculous. Indeed, if this were credible, why has it not been used successfully against prior state voting ID laws? Rather than making this claim on CNN, it would be interesting for Raskin to try it in court once the SAVE Act passes.
It is unlikely to succeed because the 19th Amendment guarantees the right to vote, but, like all citizens, women can be asked to prove their eligibility to vote. The suggestion that requiring a signature on an attestation form is a barrier to voting is simply incredible.
The Nineteenth Amendment provides:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Requiring proof of your identity neither denies nor abridges the right to vote. Indeed, for supporters of voter ID laws, it protects the right to vote by ensuring that only eligible voters are counted in elections.
Would requiring the REAL ID also violate constitutional rights like the right to travel or association for those with name changes? Of course not. The government may require basic identification for such transactions while creating reasonable methods of addressing name or address changes.
The claim of a 19th Amendment violation is spurious but par for the course in our current political environment. As with claims that democracy is about to die, these inflammatory claims are designed to distract voters who overwhelmingly support Voter ID. Democratic members are unified in opposing such laws. That is a debate that should be resolved on the merits, not meritless constitutional claims.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
For a long time it was argued by the Democratic Party that Black Americans votes would be suppressed by voter ID because of their inability to figure out how to get a valid ID. (Or so the Democrats claimed) This was especially prominent in the 2021-2022 when many states started requiring voter ID. A TV station in NYC (I don’t remember which) took a reporter and cameraman down the street outside of their studio and interviewed every African American they saw and asked 1-did they have a picture ID, 2- did they know where To go to get a picture ID if theirs was lost. Every single African American they interviewed had a picture ID and every single one knew where the nearest BMV was located, if they needed a replacement.
The state of Georgia caught much flack and lost the MLB all-star game because they instituted voter ID. After that law was enacted they had record numbers in subsequent elections and voter participation. As often happens.
Voters don’t vote when they have no confidence that their votes will be legitimately counted and tend to vote more when they are confident that votes are tallied honestly. This has been observed in many countries.
Basically every democracy in the world has voter ID. The UK was the last to add this under the recent Conservative Government but Labor is now making noises about revoking that law, if they have not done so already. Imagine that.
The fact that Raskin is a member of congress has no bearing on his intelligence for good or ill.
Raskin is a radical left wing Nut. Perhaps he should spend time with his NGO’s?? he is reported to have in his family?
Your response clearly makes you a rightwing nut.
Kid Rock – the MAGA favorite. Can you all just admit you are all pedophiles?
“Why is every guy in America waiting on these chicks to turn 18?” the singer reportedly said on the show. “I mean, you know what I’m saying? If there’s grass on the field, play ball.”
Gone are the days when Raskin and Ossoff would have been laughed off the stage for their commentary. The citizens of their states would have been appalled. Now such stupidity is treated by the MSM as serious legal argumentation. This level stupidity is tragic.
Gone? Raskin is a 5 term MOC. Ossoff, senator, elected 2021. Only thing gone is your mind.
Political motives are inferred from behavior and outcomes, not from confessions. When lawmakers oppose a measure supported by an overwhelming majority of the public and rely on arguments unlikely to survive judicial review, it is reasonable to analyze strategy rather than sincerity.
If you disagree, explain how opposing voter ID advances election integrity or equal protection. Dismissal is not an argument.
I have never been opposed to voter ID but an unfair application of requirements. One example would be accepting state-issued gun registrations but not accepting state-issued college IDs from state colleges and universities. A second would be making it hard and costly to obtain an ID. In the Black belt of Alabama, several counties only open their offices one day a month during business hours to issue drivers licenses. This was implemented in 2015 and slightly revised after public outcry, but it happened. Working people have to take off work to obtain their license which some of the people targeted find costly to do. People without documentation like birth certificates have to obtain one from their state of birth and if needed in less than weeks may have to be expedited at considerable cost. I once paid approximately $35 to get a certified copy of mine from Minnesota, poll tax, anyone?
https://www.governing.com/archive/drivers-license-offices-will-reopen-on-limited-basis.html
The issue Raskin cited for women is real and while Turley says that states can address the issue, it doesn’t mean they will. I agree with you that political motives can be inferred from behavior and outcomes but that is the exact opposite approach of the Supreme Court which ignores outcomes as proof of racial discrimination in voting laws and allows political gerrymandering which seems totally un-American to me. Perhaps you can explain why either Party should be able to impose their will on the citizenry.
Lastly, one can be for voter ID and oppose a bill that leaves loopholes and flaws, not saying that’s true or untrue in Raskin’s case.
Those are fair concerns, and they deserve to be addressed directly.
Voter ID only works if the IDs accepted are rationally related to verifying identity and eligibility, and if access to qualifying IDs is reasonably affordable and available. Arbitrary exclusions or unnecessary cost undermine confidence and should be corrected. Those are design flaws, not an argument against verification itself.
On name changes, the issue exists, but courts have historically treated it as an administrative problem capable of neutral resolution, not a constitutional violation. The remedy is clearer standards and uniform procedures, not abandoning eligibility requirements.
It is also important to distinguish between implementation concerns and allegations of improper motive. Labeling neutral eligibility requirements as a “poll tax” or inferring discriminatory intent without evidence collapses the discussion and substitutes accusation for analysis.
One can support voter ID in principle while opposing a poorly drafted bill. The real test is whether we focus on fixing flaws while preserving the core principle of lawful participation.
Best comment yet.
Here’s a thought, you consider yourself an intellectual, so a test: You argue, here and now, why voter ID is wrong. Raskin has one, take it further.
Of course you’ll write, there is no logical argument (there are political ones), which is the cowards way out of the argument.
What’s more, if there were a vaccine to prevent stupidity, Raskin would refuse it….for obvious reasons.
If I were a dem, I’d wholly support Raskin’s tenacity for the issues he supports. And guess what, he resonates with his voters, elected 5 times. And Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. He’s got pull. Keep insulting him, just shows how ignorant and hateful you are.
Re: “just shows how ignorant and hateful you are.” Rubbish!!. Raskin and his lot manifest the soft bigotry of low expectations for the intelligence of the low information voter. There in lies the rub, and how he holds his supporters in his thrall. Groucho Marx would have put it this way: “I could never respect a constituency which would raise ME to elected office!!” The content of the inane utterances which he is given leave to hold forth in his role as ranking member makes that clear.
So, I win, your response is to resort to comedy. So that makes you a comedian. And definitely not an intellectual.
Yes. I don’t think Sen. John Kennedy would tell you Raskin tests negative for stupid.
“. . . you need an affidavit . . .”
That “affidavit” is called a marriage certificate. It’s also used to explain a name change for drivers license, passport, insurance, banking . . .
Is Raskin concerned that women are incapable of figuring out these “complicated” issues?
It takes careful listening to astute members of the Black community who are clear about their interpretation of what white supremacy is. Any socio-political, or economic institution, including those of color, which pretends to act ‘for the benefit; of the Black community because, in the opinion of the ‘actors’ their beneficiaries are incapable, unable or unwilling do it for themselves. Voter ID’s, driver’s licences, etc. Any avenue to independence and self-reliance will be thwarted by Raskin and others of his ilk for cause. This lot are the 21st slavemasters who act to keep ‘the folks’ down on the plantation in order to exercise control and seize the reins of power. The task now is for the aforementioned astute to get the message out to the masses and force them to wake up and smell the black coffee.
Blacks will vote dem no matter what. Self-reliance thwarted? He’s asking questions, making arguments. Raskin knows how to play politics and rile reps like you. You took the bait and made yourself a fool.
This debate exposes something deeper than election mechanics. It tests the capacity of citizens for self-government.
An engaged, enlightened, and self-reliant citizen does not wait for the government to make voting effortless. They take responsibility for meeting the legal requirements of participation. They make sure they can prove eligibility. They want the rules followed and applied evenly to everyone.
That is why overwhelming public support for voter ID matters. It reflects an instinct that citizenship carries obligations as well as rights. A healthy republic depends on citizens who prepare themselves to participate lawfully, not on systems designed to excuse or erase basic civic responsibility.
Lots of gobbledygook just to say, if you want to vote, then register as your state requires. Do you get paid by the word?
This is the perfect embodiment of what George W. Bush called the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Why do Democrats assume black people, or women, or Latinos are too stupid to obtain proper identification? Why do they insist on valid photo identification for every person who wishes to enter the Capitol to visit their offices, or take a flight, or enter any federal building?
Democrats do not assume that. You fell for the propaganda. So you watched a video and now you’re an activist?
I do not believe most Democrats in Congress think voters are incapable of obtaining identification. I doubt that very much.
What I do believe is that they are counting on a portion of the electorate that will not examine the contradiction between their rhetoric about “saving democracy” and their opposition to basic eligibility verification. That is the audience this argument is aimed at.
The issue is not voter capacity. It is political calculation. And that is why the hypocrisy persists despite overwhelming public support for voter ID.
Doubt all you want. Proving it is proof. You got any of that to support your doubt?
Jamie Raskin is vying for Most Obnoxious Member of Congress. He’s giving it his best shot against the likes of Eric Swallwell, Maxine Waters and the insufferable Jasmine Crockett. He’s going to have to up his game as Jasmine is currently leading by a wide margin in the Congressional Obnoxious Poll.
Raskin is a MOC. Ever served in congress? Of course not, that’s why you spend you days spewing nonsense.
As for obnoxious, you take the prize.
Irredeemably leftist puke obviously. Why do you cowards always hide behind the “anonymous” label?
Because I don’t kiss your dumb ass? So your resort to insults, typical here. Can’t win, then insults and threats. Very adult of you.
BTW, your moniker also makes you anonymous. Figure that out.
Seek help. You obviously have anger issues. Don’t take out your self-hatred on me. I’m not your problem – you are.
Walt or whoever you pretend to me, you confronted anon, you got what you wanted, to be insulted, then you played the childish “coward card”. In fact, you are a bully in this game you so often play here. Easy to insult when your anonymous eh Walt? Go ahead puff up your chest, bang on it too. You’re still an anon bully.
Make it make sense. But you can’t. Leftists bathed in hatred are too obvious.
They’re all worried about primary challenges from their left flank. That’s why there is a race to the bottom to see who can out liberal everyone else. Pretty soon, we’ll see them self immolating to a picture of Trump. We could only be so lucky…
And look at the headlines they’ve gotten. Voters what action, and dems offer it. Reps? They look tired and lost.
What’s a woman?
Wrong thread. Hungover eh.
Title of the blog post:
“Raskin: Voter ID Law Violates the 19th Amendment in Denying the Vote to WOMEN”
And your takeaway is to mockingly state “what is a woman”. That’s some pretty heady stuff swirling around in your empty head.
That was one of the more inane “arguments” I have seen against voter ID. Absolutely amazing.
What are the other “inane arguments” you’ve seen?
@Anonymous
How about, ‘Jim Crow on steroids.’? Because obviously, to democrats, black folks all be runnin’ around with no ID, and democrats also love to patronizingly code shift, cuz to democrats, black folks also be stoopid.
Got more? So we got just two.
You’re mad and you’re losing. That’s the only thing about you that makes sense.
Bottom line: There is no evidence to support the idea that voter id suppresses turnout in any group. All arguments to the contrary are hyperbolic nonesense.