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.”
Given that a “Real ID” is required for domestic flights now, does that mean that women are being prevented from domestic flights?
Raskin had to come up with an argument and that was the best he could come up with. But it might not be fair asking an idiot like Raskin such a question. Then again, it was CNN.
Wasn’t one of Raskin’s first acts in the House trying to not certify Trump’s election in 2016? This is Dem hypocrisy at it’s best.
The real irony is this. The time and effort it takes for a lawful citizen to obtain identification and prove eligibility to vote is dramatically less than what it would take for someone to enter the country illegally and then vote, yet voter ID is portrayed as an unreasonable burden and a real threat to our democracy.
OLLY,
Well, the wait to get our Real ID was a bit time consuming, but once in the office itself the whole thing was said and done in less than ten minutes of which waiting for the cashier was the longest.
Fair enough. That reinforces the responsibilities aspect of citizenship. Everyone that values our system should take their responsibility to meet voting eligibility requirements seriously.
I fully support requiring that voters show a valid photo ID before voting. (Not sure why this has become rocket science…) And getting voter ID’s should be issued at DMV offices, where one obtains a current drivers’ license, with the stars making them secure enough to use for flying–“real ID’s.” (And allowing people to register to vote ON voting days is simply a formula for fraud–bad idea.) But also, have “registration days” for voter registration at various community centers in neighborhoods, so ALL people can get registered easily, including those without cars.
My favorite story: several years ago, I wanted to check out some books from the Fairfax Co., Va. public library on the subject of voter ID’s and fraudulent voting that occurs sometimes when ID’s are not required. (This was before Virginia started requiring that voters show a photo ID at the polls.) Turns out my library card had expired, so I had to get a new one to be able to check out the books I had selected. I HAD TO SHOW A PHOTO ID JUST TO BE ABLE TO RENEW MY LIBRARY CARD! Yes, my LIBRARY CARD! The irony was significant, and I have never forgotten the fact that at that time, I had to have an ID to get a library card, but not to vote–a matter of far more significance and importance.
Excellent! The library card example is exactly the point. We accept ID requirements as normal for everyday activities, yet single out voting as uniquely exempt, even though it is one of the most consequential acts of citizenship.
Democrats Just Gave Away The Real Reason They’re Fighting Immigration Enforcement
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/02/05/democrats-just-gave-away-the-real-reason-theyre-fighting-immigration-enforcement-n4949144
Miranda Devine: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson removed any shred of impartiality by applauding anti-ICE speeches at the Grammys
After all, the left has waged a years-long campaign to get Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito thrown off the court for such sins as holidaying with a friend who happens to be wealthy, in Thomas’ case, or in Alito’s, having a wife who flew a patriotic flag outside their home.
By Miranda Devine (Opinion) – NY Post ~ Feb. 4, 2026
https://nypost.com/2026/02/04/opinion/miranda-devine-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-removed-any-shred-of-impartiality-by-applauding-anti-ice-speeches-at-the-grammys/
The year after RBG refrained from recusing herself in a case involving an Israeli industrialist, an Israeli foundation controlled by the industrialist awarded her a prize worth $1 million.
RBG declined the million, but did accept a sinful private jet trip to Tel Aviv, and a tour of the Middle East.
Pro Publica did not care.
Based upon the argument put forth by Rep Raskin, I have to question whether he has the ability to read simple sentences. If he can, then the only conclusion I can reach is that his statement is just done in support of the Democrat Party’s leadership’s position. And that position is another one that 80+% of the voting-age population of the United States opposes.
Turley– “Democratic members are unified in opposing such [voter ID] laws.”
They also oppose immigration officials at polls.
What possible explanation for this other than that they want to cheat?
Raskin’s voter ID argument invites us to flyspeck a piece of of a whole cake. Don’t care about voting integrity; that only causes damage. What about the whole cake? Voting integrity, sanctuary cities to draw illegal aliens to blue populations, counting them in the decennial census for congressional apportionment, and the flow through effect on the Electoral College. Missouri now has brought suit to challenge counting illegals in the census for population apportionment. The gravamen of the complaint is dilution of of votes of Missouri voters in favor of states with more illegal aliens, among other harms. There is argument in the filing that illegals have not been counted in times past, as the correct counting template. Census counting went to bat during Trump 45, but on the issue of unpersuasive reason given under the Administrative Procedure Act for change to the census form. Missouri’s claim is a call for an originalist reading of the Constitution itself. If Missouri is successful, watch what happens to Democrat zeal to oppose voter ID.
The Constitution told the Cenaus not to count “Indians not taxed,” presumably because their loyalty was to their sovereign tribe, and not to the United States. By this logic, illegal immigrants should thus not be counted, because their loyalty is to their previous countries, not the US
Democrats really must be desperate to have to resort to THAT (re: 19th amendment) as their argument. But they have nothing else to run on, other than fear. Just like Schumer declaring the SAVE act is Jim Crow 2.0!!!
Much of this debate turns on a fundamental difference in how citizenship is understood. One side speaks almost exclusively in terms of rights, detached from any corresponding obligations. The other understands voting as a right exercised within a civic framework that necessarily includes responsibilities such as eligibility verification and rule-following.
A republic cannot function on rights alone. Self-government presumes citizens who are willing to meet basic civic requirements in order to participate lawfully and equally. Protecting the franchise means protecting both the right to vote and the integrity of the process by which that right is exercised.
This is the part that Turley left out about the SAVE act,
“ Additionally, birth certificates often lack information that matches a person’s current identity. For instance, someone who has changed their name through marriage or court order may need to present a third document (such as a marriage certificate) to join their proof of citizenship (e.g., birth certificate) with their proof of identity (e.g., driver’s license), further decreasing the likelihood that a voter will have the appropriate documentation on hand to successfully register.
Even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task, one that election officials and motor vehicle departments often do not have the resources or training to perform.
Kansas offers a case study of how a documentary proof requirement would likely play out in practice. Before the law took effect, noncitizen registration in Kansas was exceedingly rare, accounting for about 0.002% of registered voters. After adoption, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement prevented roughly 31,000 eligible citizens, or 12% of all applicants, from registering to vote. In short, the law prevented far more citizens from registering to vote than noncitizens.”
It’s designed to exclude eligible voters.
“ For voters who register by mail, the SAVE Act requires documentary proof of citizenship to be delivered in person to an election office, effectively nullifying the benefits of mail registration.
At the same time, the legislation does not clearly specify how documentary proof must be submitted for online registration, leaving election officials without clear guidance on acceptable delivery methods. This ambiguity increases the risk of inconsistent implementation across jurisdictions and places election officials in the position of making high-stakes judgment calls without clear statutory direction.
The SAVE Act also exposes election officials to heightened legal and personal risk. It establishes criminal penalties for officials who register an applicant who fails to present documentary proof of citizenship, even if that applicant is in fact a U.S. citizen. The bill also authorizes private individuals to sue election officials under the same circumstances.
Together, these provisions could encourage overly cautious behavior (e.g., not accepting applications to register when an election official isn’t familiar with the type of documentation provided) and further strain an election workforce already facing high turnover and burnout.”
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would require all American citizens registering to vote or updating their registration information to present documentary proof of citizenship in person. For the vast majority of Americans, this would be a passport or birth certificate.
Government-issued driver’s licenses—including REAL IDs—as well as military or tribal IDs do not satisfy the bill’s requirements.
The SAVE Act would change the way all citizens register to vote upon enactment. It would upend online voter registration, make it impossible to mail in a registration application, and eliminate voter registration drives.
84 percent of women who marry change their surname, meaning as many as 69 million American women do not have a birth certificate with their legal name on it and thereby could not use their birth certificate to prove citizenship. The SAVE Act makes no mention of being able to show a marriage certificate or change-of-name documentation.
Even small changes such as moving into an apartment building, moving down the block, or changing party affiliation are considered voter registration updates. Under the SAVE Act, Americans would have to go in person to their election office and present original or certified documentation to make any voter registration change.
REAL IDs would not work. The legislation states that “a form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States” can be used. However, no state’s REAL ID indicates citizenship status, and legally residing noncitizens can obtain a REAL ID.
Just as REAL ID is not enough to prove citizenship when ICE demands proof of citizenship when they stop you on the street.
Raskin is not wrong. Turley is pushing a false narrative.
What’s your point? George, we know you don’t many concepts, here’s one you may get, Turley is opining. He’s not a reporter or journalist. Do you know the difference? Use your AI tools.
TS:DR.
But my guess is that you fail to note that all a woman needs to vote is a DRIVERS LICENSE. DO you know any women that don’t have a drivers license? If you are going to claim it is poor women then do you know any poor women that receive SNAP or any other benefits? If so they need an ID to receive them.
The bottom line is that Dems imported 10 million illegals in 3 1/2 years, demanded that they be counted for representative purposes, fight tooth and nail against deporting any of them, try to give illegals drivers licenses with some states automatically registering these same people to vote and then also demand no ID to vote and demand that there be no ICE officers at polling places.
But Dems don’t cheat at elections??!?!?!?!??!!??!
HullBobby,
Well said!
Remember this gem: Kamala Harris panned for requiring ID to enter Arizona rally after previously painting voter ID laws as racist
“Harris rallygoers outside Phoenix were required to present IDs upon entry”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-panned-requiring-id-enter-arizona-rally-after-previously-painting-voter-id-laws-racist/