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.”
Poll workers are not equipped to verify citizenship at the polls. It would also make the lines longer. Proving citizenship is dumb because the government already knows who is a citizen.
Voter fraud is very rare. Stricter voting laws will not nothing but prevent eligible voters from voting.
Also you don’t need ID to fly. That is a TSA myth.
Read the article. You do all this before election day…. ” 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.” It’s just above this letter – read it.
That’s not what Raskin said. He never said that. What the SAVE Act does require is IN PERSON registration at an election office, meaning physically bring a birth certificate. Online registrations, mail-in registrations won’t be allowed forcing millions of eligible voters to go to a registration office EVERY TIME there is a change such as address, name, changing district, etc. Every time all voters MUST register in person. A REAL ID is not proof of citizenship.
This happened in Kansas where 31,000 eligible voters were not able to register. Applying it nationwide would disenfranchise millions just before the mid-terms. Making it easier for Trump and republicans to once again cheat.
They know they are not going to win the House in the midterms.
So you approve of Governor Gavin Newsom’s blatant gerrymandering of California voting districts to favor (D)’s?
SCOTUS approved of California’s redistricting, as well as that in Texas.
SCOTUS explicitly stated that redistricting for purely partisan advantage is perfectly acceptable.
So what exactly is your point ????
California did what Texas did. SCOTUS allowed it. Of course I approve it. You support the Texas’ redistricting effort to gain more Republican seats? Sure you do.
I have zero problms VA is now trying to do the same thing.
Gerry mandering is a huge gamble. Very slight shifts in voting can flip large numbers of seats
As Sun Tzu says
When your enemy is making a mistake – do not get in their way.
Except that CA didn’t do what TX did. The TX redistricting erased a racial gerrymander that had been in the previous map, and that DOJ threatened to sue over. Whereas in CA the person who was hired to draw the actual map was caught explicitly saying that his instructions were to create a racial gerrymander, which is illegal (except in circumstances that don’t exist in CA). That is why the CA map should have been thrown out, while the TX one was correctly upheld. Unfortunately SCOTUS gave no reasons for upholding the CA map, so we don’t now whether it even considered the evidence against it.
why is georgie presuming that those 31,000 voters were all Democrats and/or voters who would not vote for Trump?
Kansas is a VERY Red state-even if those 31,000 ALL voted against Trump or Republicans, it would not have dented the outcome. georgie just likes to always take the side against Turley
You missed the point. I did not presume anything. You did. What it DID do was disenfranchise 31,000 eligible voters. It took off 31,000 voters that could vote either Republican or Democrat. Not all voters are going to belong to either party. Independent voters can also be affected.
No one was disenfranchised.
They were merely inconvenienced and had to come back with the correct documents if they wished to vote.
You do not even know if those 31,000 people did not have documents because they could not legally vote.
What Raskin said was WRONG,
Raskin said SAVE violates the 19th amendment,
With certainty left wing nuts will challenge it up through the supreme court.
and they will lose, because this is just another idiotic left wing nut claim.
To be clear I have no problem with people like Raskin brainstorming ways to get courts to invalidate laws they do not like.
Left and right are free to go to court with novel arguments about the constitutionality of various laws.
The problem is when courts not merely take seriously these novel arguments, but decide to flip the burden of proof, and presume that the novel argument will prevail and grant summary judgement, preliminary injunctions or TROs before even having hearings on the merits.
The problem with novel arguments is the failure of left wing nut judges – not lawyers.
I favor creative advocacy – on the left and the right. But the burden or proof runs against novel claims,
and they should not be accepted until through rigorous analysis and review they have held up.
“What the SAVE Act does require is IN PERSON registration at an election office”
Correct.
“meaning physically bring a birth certificate.”
That will likely be the norm, but the save act does not require that.
Regardless, I do not have a problem if that was actually what it required.
“Online registrations, mail-in registrations won’t be allowed forcing millions of eligible voters to go to a registration office EVERY TIME there is a change such as address, name, changing district, etc.”
While you are incorrect about the SAVE act – even if you were not.
SO WHAT.
“Every time all voters MUST register in person. A REAL ID is not proof of citizenship.”
It is if you provided poroof of citizenship ONCE when you got it.
“This happened in Kansas where 31,000 eligible voters were not able to register.”
Until they returned with necescary documents.
Nothing in the save act makes registration impossible.
just a tiny bit harder.
Like getting a Drivers license some people might have to try more than once.
“Applying it nationwide would disenfranchise millions just before the mid-terms.”
First it is highly unlikely to pass and take effect before mid terms.
But even if it did – it disenfranchises no one.
Atleast not anyone who can lawfully vote.
in 1787 voters did not register online or by mail.
” Making it easier for Trump and republicans to once again cheat.”
How so ?
It makes it HARDER for everyone to cheat.
The only way your arguments make sense is if you believe only republican voters are competent enough to comply with the save act ?
You have identified a long list of hypothetical burderns of the SAVE ACT.
Which of those is a partisan burden ?
You tell us all that republicans are stupider than democrats
Here is your chance to prove it.
If you think that the SAVE act will result in fewer democrat votes than republican ones,
you are admitting that democrats are lazier or less competent than republicans.
“They know they are not going to win the House in the midterms.”
The odds are against them – but we are getting ALOT of very wierd polling.
Democrats have had 11 off off term elections where they gained a larger portion of the vote then they had in the last election.
Republicans have only had 3.
But the total swing in GOP gains has been nearly as large as the total swing in democrat gains.
Further polls – including many left leaning polls are showing conflicting results.
ICE is 20% under water in one poll, yet the same polster finds that voters want illegals and especially criminal illegals deported as badly as ever.
Polls show minesotans want their law enforcement to coopoerate with ICE.
There are poll that should the general ballot as +14D, but there are also polls that show it as +4R.
Further most not all current polls are of the general population, or registered voters, not likely voters, and several left leaning likely voters are using a voting model that does not match any actual voting we have seen in the past 10 years.
What matters most is who shows up to vote in november.
2026 – except being a mid term most resembles 2020.
We have violence in the streets in opposition to Trump’s polices.
What is different between 2026 and 2020 is that republicans have significantly but not completely ended left wing nut voting nonsense.
Republicans are going to pass SAVE in some form. It is likely to be a brutal battle.
And in fact republicans WANT it to be a loud and brutal battle – because it is an 80:20 issue and they WANT democrats to bet it all on winning a 20:80 issue.
Republicans also want voting and voter fraud to be front and center for the next 9 months.
And GA has absoltely given them the oportunity to keep voting irregulatirties and Fraud in the news for 9 months.
That is a huge winning issue for republicans.
But it is more than just about getting republicans to vote
It is also about intimidating the fraudsters and democrat election officials.
We saw SOME of that in 2024. Many rightly beleive that Trump won in 2024 – because Democrats were NOT able to stuff the ballot box with 10M additional fraudulent votes.
While the rule of law only PARTLY returned to elections in 2024 – there was MASSIVE republican scrutiny of the election process.
We have stepped even closer to the rule of law regarding elections in 2026.
The SCOTUS ruling that candidates ALWAYS have standing in an election is huge,
It does NOT mean more election law suits. But it does mean election officials better following the law so that they do NOT get sued.
The DOJ/FBI raid on Fulton county is not just going after criminal election fraud – it is a message to sloppy and lawless blue election officials, that they are being watched, and they should do their job lawfully and carefully.
Those of you on the left rant that election fraud is rare.
In places where election laws are well constructed and scrupulously followed that is true.
In places where the outcome of the election is certain from the start – that is also true.
No one cheats in an election that is going to be +20 no matter what.
No one cheats when they must do so on a scale they are certain to get caught.
Successful election fraud MUST stay under the radar,
In 2020 it took every trick in the book to prevent real scrutiny of the election.
And while the left succeded that success is not repeatable.
And worse still – most people beleive the left cheated.
I do not know what will happen in the upcoming election.
I suspect the odds favor democrats taking the house.
But it is also true that Trump and republicans are doing everything in their power to win this election.
And democrats are doing everything in their power to lose it.
So we will see.
Dad, Time for the meds. Please come up out of the basement.
So the poll worker can’t check your drivers license but the 21 year old at the liquor store can????
HullBobby,
HA!! Yep! And in some states, you only have to be 18 to sell alcohol.
Sure, poll workers are equipped to verify citizenship. All they have to do is check for the proper ID as verified in the SAVE act, confirm it matches the person standing in front of them and done. Just like showing ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Poll workers get training in their functions. I know. Two of my neighbors are poll workers.
If a eligible voter is too lazy to get the proper documentation, that is on them. I had to get my Real ID in order to fly.
You don’t need ID to fly. You can pay a fee now.
It’s not about showing ID at the polls. It’s about proving citizenship when registering. The SAVE Act requires every single person register in person with their birth certificate. It MUST match your current name on your current ID’s. Women have to get additional proof of their name change and every single change in status like address change, district change, party change, etc must be done in person and present a birth certificate for every change. That effectively eliminates online registration and mail-in registration which many states allow. Mostly Democrat led states. It effectively disenfranchises millions of eligible voters.
Lying sack of manure, you need an ID to fly, you need an ID to check into a hotel, you need an ID to buy booze if you look young, you need ID to get benefits, you need ID to get Medicare, you need a damn ID to get into Democrat Senator Ossoff’s rally for crying out loud.
Hullbobby, the busiest package store in the town I live in checks everybody’s I’d. Even mine and I’m 76.
False, you must have ID, you can paythe fee if you do not have Real ID compliant ID.
“It’s not about showing ID at the polls.”
False.
” It’s about proving citizenship when registering. ”
True
“The SAVE Act requires every single person register in person with their birth certificate.”
False
There are SEVERAL purposes to SAVE.
Proving you are a real living breathing person is ONE.
Proving you are who you say you are is another.
Proving you are legally eligable to vote is another.
Making it harder to vote more than one time is another.
” Mostly Democrat led states.”
So democrats are too stupid to vote ?
“It effectively disenfranchises millions of eligible voters.”
it does not disenfranchise a single eligable voter, it merely mildly inconveniences a few.
With inconvenice that all of us experience all of the time.
But lets say that as a result of SAVE that 10M people who are actually eligible to vote decide not to go to the trouble.
How does that change anything ? People choose not to go to vote all the time.
Only about 40% of citizens vote.
Why are we to presume that if voting is a bit more difficult the impact will be disparate,.
Are democrats lazier ? Stupider ?
What part of the SAVE act imposes a partisan skewed burden on citizens ?
Both are up for Re-Election ~ 2026 SoapBox Campaign
Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff is seeking re-election in Georgia for the 2026 cycle, facing a highly competitive race in a state won by Donald Trump in 2024. As of early 2026, Ossoff leads in fundraising with over $43 million reported, positioning him as a top GOP target. The race is considered a crucial battleground for Senate control.
Sen. Jon Ossoff – Senator for Georgia
Ossoff is the senior senator from Georgia and is a Democrat. He has served since Jan. 20, 2021. Ossoff is next up for reelection in 2026 and serves until Jan. 3, 2027. He is 38 years old.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/jon_ossoff/456857
–
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has officially
filed for re-election to represent Maryland’s 8th Congressional District in the 2026 midterm elections. He formally declared his candidacy and filed his paperwork in Annapolis on February 1, 2026.
Rep. Jamie Raskin – Representative for Maryland’s 8th District
Raskin is the representative for Maryland’s 8th congressional district (view map) and is a Democrat. He has served since Jan. 3, 2017. Raskin is next up for reelection in 2026 and serves until Jan. 3, 2027. He is 63 years old.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/jamie_raskin/412708
Soapbox: Snake Oil Salesman
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox
It all boils down to individual responsibility and your desire to control, as much as you can, the way and by whom you are governed. Every person today has multiple reasons or requirements to obtain and carry proper identification from getting a job to collecting government benefits. The scare tactics are not working like they used to due to today’s easy access to information.
Turley is being disingenuous with the facts, which is not surprising. He did a misleading switcheroo with Raskin’s words and distorted what the SAVE Act actually requires.
Raskin clearly pointed out that the SAVE Act mandates that all forms of identification must match the voter’s registration, including their name across all documents. He explicitly did not say that women must bring their birth certificates to polling places. Instead, he referenced existing state laws that address issues related to women and their maiden names. So why was the SAVE Act introduced in the first place? Because it would supersede state laws regarding name matching on all identification forms, imposing new requirements just nine months before the midterm elections.
Republicans recognize they are politically vulnerable. Donald Trump is facing difficulties across multiple areas, including his handling of immigration, with declining approval ratings. Economically, grocery prices remain high, utility bills are soaring, tariffs continue to increase costs for consumers, and overall economic growth is sluggish. Additionally, the recent release of the Epstein files has created fresh problems for Trump, and his Justice Department’s mishandling of investigations is further complicating his stance on immigration.
The enactment of the SAVE Act appears unnecessary; its primary purpose seems to be to manipulate voter turnout in the upcoming midterms by raising new concerns about women’s voter registration accuracy and forcing states to verify voter rolls under its provisions.
Raskin emphasizes a specific point that Turley avoided addressing: that all forms of ID must match the voter’s name, including their birth certificate. However, a birth certificate—which is often used as proof of identity—is not an acceptable form of ID at polling stations because it is not a photo ID. Therefore, Turley’s claim that Raskin’s argument involves birth certificates as valid IDs is mistaken.
The need for the SAVE Act is questionable since all states already enforce laws requiring photo identification for voting, a stance that Democrats generally support. The real controversy lies in the additional requirement that every ID must match the voter’s name exactly. Republicans have exploited signature-matching challenges to dispute the legitimacy of certain voter registrations, knowing that signatures can vary and are rarely perfect. Yet, they insist that these matches be exact, creating barriers to voter participation.
In conclusion, Raskin correctly pointed out the requirement in the SAVE Act that all IDs must match the voter’s registered name. Turley’s failure to address this crucial detail indicates his reluctance to acknowledge the legislation’s true implications.
That is a poison pill amendment democrats are offering.
It’s amazing how these lefties try to twist and contort everything. They must take courses in this crap.
TDS. With the enormous influx of illegal aliens in this country, the SAVE Act provides needed security to our elections.
Calling an argument “disingenuous” does not make it so. If the claim is that Raskin’s words or the SAVE Act were misrepresented, that must be shown by reference to the statutory text, not asserted as rhetoric.
As written, the SAVE Act does not require birth certificates at polling places or multiple forms of ID on Election Day. It allows several forms of proof of citizenship and permits state-provided attestations to resolve name discrepancies, including those arising from marriage or divorce. These are administrative mechanisms, not prohibitions.
Concerns about name matching are legitimate implementation issues. Treating them as constitutional violations or evidence of voter suppression is not. Courts have consistently distinguished neutral eligibility verification from denial or abridgment of the right to vote.
Finally, imputing partisan motive does not resolve the legal question. If the Act improperly overrides state authority or imposes unreasonable burdens, that argument should be made on statutory or constitutional grounds, not assumed intent.
Olly,
“ Calling an argument “disingenuous” does not make it so. If the claim is that Raskin’s words or the SAVE Act were misrepresented, that must be shown by reference to the statutory text, not asserted as rhetoric.”
It makes it so,
“ 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.”
Turley said,
“ 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.”
Turley deliberately ignored Raskin’s point and then proceeded to make a point that had zero relevance to what Raskin’s was talking about.
“ Concerns about name matching are legitimate implementation issues. Treating them as constitutional violations or evidence of voter suppression is not.”
It’s only “legitimate” because the intent is to make it harder or nearly impossible to properly register particularly for women who change their maiden names and married names often thru divorce.
The Act also requires every update to a voter’s status by done in person including resubmitting a birth certificate as proof. Meaning you can’t update online or by mail which many states allow. It’s intentional hassle baked into the SAVE Act that discourages legitimate voters.
“ If the Act improperly overrides state authority or imposes unreasonable burdens, that argument should be made on statutory or constitutional grounds, not assumed intent.”
It’s already being made. It infringes on women’s right to vote by imposing requirements that affect them more than men. It’s an additional burden. They must provide proof of name change, thru the use of marriage license and birth certificate and present it in person every time their status changes.
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.
“It makes it so,”
Not that you have shown.
“Turley deliberately ignored Raskin’s point”
No he delerately REFUTES Raskins point.
You keep fixating on Marraige.
married women vote R+5
20% of more of married democratic women do NOT change their names.
less than 10% of republican women keep their maiden names.
“It’s only “legitimate” because the intent is to make it harder or nearly impossible to properly register particularly for women who change their maiden names and married names often thru divorce.”
ROFL
Please cite the slightest evidence that Republicans were intentionally making it harder for married women – who are R+5 to vote. ?
“The Act also requires”
What the act says it requires NOT what you claim.
“Meaning you can’t update online or by mail which many states allow.”
Correct – we verify that things are doing be REAL PEOPLE by requiring that they are done in person.
Voting is NOT a purcase on Amazon.
“It’s intentional hassle baked into the SAVE Act that discourages legitimate voters.”
If so that would be irrelevant.
Government and laws are ALWAYS an inconvenience.
WE ALWAYS trade the inconvenience of meeting the requirements of a law, for the benefits of the rule of law.
“It’s already being made. It infringes on women’s right to vote by imposing requirements that affect them more than men.”
So don’t change your name.
Regardless that is not the constitutional standard.
Laws improving access for the handicapped pose additional burdens to those who are not handicapped.
The lefts idiocy of “desparate impact” is legal and constitutional nonsense.
No law is neutral with respect to everything.
“84 percent of women who marry change their surname,”
Correct – that is 80% of democrats and 90% of republicans.
There are currently 62M married couples in the US. of those only about 52M are eligable to vote. Of those only about 40+M changed their name. Of them about 23M are republican.
OLLY,
Well said.
And it is not as hard as Democrats are claiming it is to get the proper ID, documentation. Just takes some proper planning and being a responsible adult. The only reason why the wait was so long at the DMV to get our Real ID was the mass en flux of people rushing to get their Real ID. And the very nice and helpful young lady at the help desk checked over our documentation, the forms of ID we had and had us all squared away before we got into the actual office.
Thanks, Upstate. That matches my experience too. When people plan ahead and follow the process, it’s generally straightforward, not the ordeal it’s often portrayed to be.
It’s easy to plan ahead when you already have the documents you need. Not when you don’t. The law will impose an extra burden on those who will have to spend money and time to seek a proper state birth certificate. Not everyone residing in the state they live was born there. Those that weren’t are going to have to go to their respective states and personally request a copy. Each state may need further proof that requires more documentation to gain a copy from out of state. All of that poses problems for those who would otherwise be eligible.
OLLY,
Just for S&G, I looked up the process of how to get a birth certificate in my home state.
There are THREE ways to do it:
1) Online (opens a fillable 2 page PDF).
2) Mail in.
3) In-person.
As we have noted, just takes a little time and effort. It is not like the process is like trying to put a man on the moon.
Update just because YOUR experience was “flawless” does not mean others are going to experience it too. You don’t see an issue because you didn’t have one. To obtain a copy of a birth certificate is often more complicated than you realize, especially for older people who have not needed one for decades. Poor people don’t have time or resources to get the process going for them. It’s deliberately designed to make it harder for them to register.
Your privilege is your advantage.
X, there are steps that need to be taken but guess what, my wife needed to do these exact things in order to get a drivers license in a new state.
Now tell us how many women don’t already have a driver’s license. How many women that don’t have a DL haven’t been on assistance and therefore have an ID.
It took 5s to determine that I can request my birth certificate ONLINE.
I only have to show up IN PERSON with it in order to register to vote.
and only ONCE.
Everytime I get a new job I MUST provide proof of citizenship.
Regardless, here is the actual Text of HR 22 the most recent version of “the Save Act”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text/ih78
It does NOT say what you claim.
Among other misrepresentations
The SAVE act has a provision to provide proof of citizenship by Sworn Affadavit
and it allows he USE of REAL ID – where a states REAL ID provides the mark that citizenship has been verified – such as with a birth certificate.
The ACT requires states to develop procedures to deal with disrepancies in documents – such as married vs. Maiden names.
I think it is an excellent idea to require that registrations are ubdated when addresses change – but I find that NOWHERE in the text of the act.
Olly,
The SAVE Act also imposes extra requirements on states when the Constitution gives states the power to determine the manner and requirements to determine who is eligible to vote. Trump wants to nationalize the federal vote which would violate the constitution.
The SAVE Act also imposes extra requirements on states when the Constitution gives states the power to determine the manner and requirements to determine who is eligible to vote
The same constitution, in the very same clause gives Congress the right to override all state decisions. States only get the power to decide things that Congress hasn’t decided.
The only thing Congress can’t override is the location of polling places for senate elections. For instance suppose Congress requires a polling place within 5 miles of every residence, the state can say fine, we’ll establish those places as you require, but people can only vote there for the presidency and the house; if they want to vote for the senate as well, they’ll have to go to our polling places, which are spaced 25 miles apart. And Congress can’t override that. But that’s the only thing.
TS:DR
Lets presume all you claim is true.
So the SAVE act burdens married women –
Married women are R+5 – so the save act would disparately harm republicans.
20% of married democrat women keep their last name,
at most 10% of republican married women keep their last name
So that is another significant negative impact on Republicans not democrats.
Further the SAVE act has not been passed – there is no such thing as “the save act requires”.
It appeaars republicans are willing to force a “talking fillibuster” to pass the SAVE act.
That means unlimited amendments and votes on those amendments.
So YOU and democrats are free to figure out how to amend the SAVE act to assure that only eligable voters – living citizens old enough to vote can vote, while not imposing what you deem to be overly burdensome requirements.
Please tell us how to do that ?
Further your argument that proving citizenship is HARD,
means that voting as a non-citizen is EASY,
Something you have repeatedly claimed over the years was not true.
” So why was the SAVE Act introduced in the first place? Because it would supersede state laws regarding name matching on all identification forms”
With spin removed – correct. We have a large number of significantly different state laws regarding requirements to register to vote and later to vote.
It is CLEAR that despite what you have claimed in the past – it is NOT necescary to prove you are a citizen to vote.
In many places it is not necescary to prove you are even a real person.
You never have to appear infront of another real person.
In many places you do not have to prove there is a real person.
“imposing new requirements just nine months before the midterm elections.”
There is about zero chance CAVE act compliance will be required for the 2026 election.
But lets say it is.
You had no problems changing voting rules in 2020 at the very last minute.
“Republicans recognize they are politically vulnerable.”
Of course they are – so are democrats. What has that got to do with anything.
“Donald Trump is facing difficulties across multiple areas”
He is, he is also facing likely significant accomplishments over many areas in the next 9 months.
“including his handling of immigration”
People still want criminal illegal immigrants deported by super super majorities.
They want ALL illegl imigrants deported by 56% majorities – even in left leaning polls.
56% of minesotans want their government to cooperate with ICE.
absolutely people are not happy with the riots and the shootings.
But to the extent they are casting blame it is on democrats and republicans alike.
You are under the delusion that harming republicans or Trump or ICE helps democrats.
There is no doubt that you have had a negative impact on Trump, and republicans – but that impact has been atleast equally negative for democrats.
“with declining approval ratings”
Trumps approval has been floating from 41-47 since October 2025.
There is no trend.
Trump won the 2024 election with the same approval rating he has today.
“Economically”
Q3 2025 growth was 4.3%
Q4 was 5.1%
2025 oer all was about 3% – with Q1 and Q2 schitty as Biden left Trump with a filing economy.
2026 predictions are an average of 4.8%
“grocery prices remain high”
of course they do – we do not have deflation and the fed will not allow that to happen
nominal prices are unlikely to drop. But real prices are dropping.
“utility bills are soaring”
Energy costs have DECLINED since August after a historic Rising trend due to Biden.
“tariffs continue to increase costs for consumers”
Not that I have seen.
But if so – so what ? Democrats want tax increases,
Here is a tax increase that is moving production and jobs to the US and reducing the deficit.
BTW even many left wing nuts have grasped that the impact of tarriffs was not as they predicted.
“overall economic growth is sluggish”
ROFL
Q3 2025 – 4.3%
Q4 2025 5.1%
Projected 2026 Growth 4.6%
“Additionally, the recent release of the Epstein files has created fresh problems for Trump, and his Justice Department’s mishandling of investigations is further complicating his stance on immigration.”
What kind of insane argument is this ? Epstain has NOTHING to do with immigration.
Your so called “trumps problems” regarding immigration are negatively impacting BOTH parties.
Trump softened his tone – but not his approach, to mitigate the harm to republicans.
Homan in a suit plays better on TV than Bovino is combat gear.
Homan sent 700 ICE agents home – when Walz provided the NG and MPD to protect federal buildings and to enforce ordinary laws having nothing to do with ICE that rioters were flaunting.
Walz and to a lessor extent Frey caved – because polls were showing that the GOP could actually take MN in November.
ICE might be unpopular – but so are left wing nut democrats.
As to epstain – Both republicans and democrats have hoped and prayed that Epstain doc would fry their enemies.
Neither have seen their wishes fullfilled – exactly as I predicted.
But the left as a whole is a much bigger loser than republicans.
Half the view is in the Epstain files sucking up to Epstain AFTER his conviction as a sex preditor.
What you call the DOJ mishandling is because congress – democrats and republicans FORCE a rush job.
Yes people are upset – alittle, but as much at congress as anyone else.
“The enactment of the SAVE Act appears unnecessary;”
Yet, your own arguments prove it absolutely is.
If the changes needed to assure that only people who can legally vote are so hard,
then it is obvious that RIGHT NOW people who can not legally vote are still able to register and vote.
“its primary purpose seems to be to manipulate voter turnout in the upcoming midterms by raising new concerns about women’s voter registration accuracy and forcing states to verify voter rolls under its provisions.”
False and irrelevant.
It will not come into effect for 2026.
And the supposed negative effect you claim – is primarily on Republicans not democrats – UNLESS there truly are large numbers of votes that are not legal.
“Raskin” is just an idiot.
Again – the claims raskin makes – if true – harm republicans more than democrats.
“The need for the SAVE Act is questionable since all states already enforce laws requiring photo identification for voting”
False
14 states have ZERO requirement for ID at the polls.
Of the remaining states only about 21 require a government issued PHOTO ID.
“Republicans have exploited signature-matching challenges to dispute the legitimacy of certain voter registrations, knowing that signatures can vary and are rarely perfect.”
The standard most states use for signature matches is by law about 20% match. That is a really poor standard and will not catch ANY forgery.
What it does catches is no signature, or the signature of an entirely different person.
And we get that about 6% of the time.
Are you saying that Democrats will accept “john doe” as the signature for “bill Smith”
Because that is how bad a signature must be to fail a 20% match.
In conclusion – Raskin is an idiot or a liar and he and you know it.
All of your claims are garbage – as I have demostrated.
Regardless, Republicans appear committed to passing SAVE – and it is incredibly popular.
Even if they lose – it is Democrats that will look bad.
But I strongly suspect it will pass – so long as republicans in the senate are willing to outlast a democrat fillibuster.
That said – if you think the SAVE act is flawed – amend it.
But we expect that whatever you do it will
Only allow living humans to vote.
Only allow citizens to vote.
Only allow those eligible to vote to vote.
Only allow people to vote ONCE per election.
If your proposal does not accomplish ALL of those goals,
then you are actively seeking to find ways to commit fraud.
In the 19th century states passed secret ballot constitutional amendments in response to the massive fraud of the time.
What anyone with a brain knows is that if election fraud is possible, with a low probability of getting caught, then it WILL occur in close races.
in the 21st century we have more and more races decided by 1% of the vote or less.
Oooh that waskly Raskin who cries WOLF every time Orange Man Bad says or does anything, Haha. What a nit wit Mr. Brainard is! An OG American Wack Job. I guess the ladies will be back in Chastity Belts and our black population will be back in chains if Voter ID is ever instituted. Whew, good thing the Leftist Morons are on the job and alert for any hanky panky!
Interesting but not worthwhile. Another desperate overreach.
I already knew that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) was a moronic political hack and a liar but this claim of his is wildly absurd? Does he really think the American people are blithering idiots?
Democrats keep on figuratively adding more logs to this fire…
“Does he really think the American people are blithering idiots?”
Well, we did elect Obama twice and Biden once, so he would have at least some foundation for that belief…
“Does he really think the American people are blithering idiots?”
Only Democrat voters. Raskin *knows* his voters are idiots because he made them blithering idiots.
Democrat politicians turn their voters into idiots by endlessly, and shamelessly, lying to them day in, day out, and all the time.
Lying sociopaths like Raskin have buried their voters’ brains in an avalanche of delusional bullshlit such that they can no longer ‘think.’ They must be told what to think. Then they do as they are told, like useful idiots. Democrat good, Republican bad, Trump is Hitler, his voters are fascists, blah blah blah.
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.
The Democrats are the same as they always were: Racists to their core.
“Who will pick our cotton if we don’t have slaves?”
“Who will pick our crops if we don’t have illegal slave laborers?”
“Who will clean our toilets if we don’t have illegals to do it?”
“Why would we give them school choice? Our kids go to Sidwell Friends; they get the public schools.”
Democrats think their voters are stupid because they lie to them all the time.
“Who will vote for Democrats if we don’t have our useful brainwashed idiots?”
“Our voters are too stupid to know how to get an ID to vote.”
As Kamala said about her voters, “They don’t know how to get an ID out there in rural ‘murica, it’s too hard for them.”
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.”
You have never been in a bar on Friday night happy hour, have you.
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.
Olly,
“ 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.”
That’s the intent. They KNOW it’s an administrative problem and they are using that as a means to add to the burden of registering. States won’t implement changes in a timely fashion, especially in red states where they can use that “technicality” to their advantage. The intent is to put in place these catch-22 situations to effectively deny certain voters an opportunity to register to vote.
Best comment yet.
I’ll 2nd that enigma. Olly is full of shit.
“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.”
States that have enacted voter ID laws almost always give lots of notice before the laws go into effect. I’ve seen some that do not take effect until two years after enactment. So there’s no need to pay any expedited fee.
I needed a copy of my birth certificate for a matter unrelated to voting and paid a $20 administrative fee for it. I also had to pay $20 to obtain a copy of my father’s death certificate. Calling an administrative fee for a copy of a state issued document a poll tax seems disingenuous. It’s just another way for the state to get into your back pocket.
I assume the reason why some states accept a state issued gun permits as a permissible form of voter ID but student IDs are not is because the requirements to obtain them are different. The list of permissible documents for each state is often quite long. A site called Rock The Vote lists the documents accepted as voter ID for each state. Here is Alabama’s (which recognizes both “Pistol Permit” and “Student ID” as valid forms of ID to vote).
ID is required to vote in Alabama.
Valid forms of ID include:
– Valid Driver’s License (not expired or has been expired less than 60 days)
– Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Digital Driver’s License
– Valid Non-driver ID (not expired or has been expired less than 60 days)
– Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Digital Non-driver ID
– Valid Alabama Photo Voter ID
– Valid State Issued ID (Alabama or any other state)
– Valid AL Department of Corrections Release- Temporary ID (Photo Required)
– Valid AL Movement/Booking Sheet from Prison/Jail System (Photo Required)
– Valid Pistol Permit (Photo Required)
– Valid Federal Issued ID
– Valid US Passport
– Valid Employee ID from Federal Government, State of Alabama, County Government, Municipality, Board, Authority, or other entity of this state
– Valid student or employee ID from a college or university in the State of Alabama (including postgraduate technical or professional schools)
– Valid Military ID
– Valid Tribal ID
If you do not have any of the above forms of ID you may be able to vote provisionally.
States that do NOT accept student IDs
Arizona
Indiana
North Dakota
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
What do all of these states have in common?
Enigma, my driver’s license has my name, address, photo, and other data. It is reasonably secure. Do these student IDs in the states you mention have a photo ID?
Because a few places in Alabama possibly have discriminatory practices, should we dilute the votes of hard-working Americans, including black Americans? That type of discriminatory behavior is horrid, but so is diluting the votes of many black citizens. Over a period of years, cannot these people find a way to get the documentation they need? How do these people enter buildings that require ID, take a plane, and cash a check? I’d like to know in each case what makes it impossible for anyone to get an ID, and how many people are faced with this impossible task. What have you tried to do to rectify the situation?
Let me add, Friday night we drink wine in celebration of the Sabbath. We have that wine delivered, but if I am missing my photo ID and they refuse to provide the wine, should I be able to sue based on religious discrimination? That is how hollow your claims sound.
Ohio State University BuckID, Obtaining a BuckID,
“Don’t forget that you must present an original government issued photo ID – such as a driver’s license, state issued ID card, military ID card or a passport to receive your BuckID. Note that a photo of the original document is not acceptable.”
https://buckid.osu.edu/faqs
Imagine this student has his drivers license taken away for a traffic offense. They don’t have a license but still have that BuckID which took just as much proof to get. Why isn’t that BuckID valid to vote? I think it likely that all state colleges require proof of identification before issuing ID’s, why aren’t they valid if gun registrations are?
Imagine driver privileges are removed; I believe the driver’s license remains with the person and can be used to vote They can also get the same identification at the DMV very easily, possibly mailed to them. Maybe gun registrations should not be used. That is a good argument. I think the states you mentioned earlier require a photo on the ID.
It sounds like you have specious reasons to prevent voter ID without any concern for the voter, black and white. You sound all political without concern for good government.
“I believe the driver’s license remains with the person and can be used to vote”
No research isolates license confiscation as its own racial-disparity variable, several well‑documented findings point to why the question is important:
1. Black and Latino drivers are stopped and searched at higher rates
Large‑scale studies (Stanford Open Policing Project, DOJ consent decrees) show:
Black drivers are stopped more often
searched more often
cited more often
arrested more often
…even though they are less likely to be found with contraband.
This means any discretionary enforcement — including whether to confiscate a license — sits inside a racially skewed system.
2. Black and low‑income drivers are disproportionately suspended for non‑driving reasons
Research from CHOP/Brown University shows:
91% of license suspensions are for non‑driving‑related reasons
These suspensions fall disproportionately on Black, Latino, and low‑income drivers
The causes include unpaid fines, insurance lapses, and failure to appear — all tied to economic vulnerability
So even if confiscation isn’t studied directly, the population most likely to be suspended is already racially skewed.
3. Police discretion is racially patterned
Studies on:
arrest decisions
citation vs. warning
vehicle searches
use of force
…all show consistent racial disparities.
If confiscation is discretionary (and in most states it is), then it likely follows the same pattern — but again, no one has studied it directly.
Why no one has studied confiscation specifically
Three reasons:
1. Most states don’t require confiscation
Since officers usually return the license even during an arrest, researchers haven’t treated confiscation as a major variable.
2. Data isn’t collected
Police departments do not track:
whether the license was physically taken
why it was taken
the race of the driver in relation to confiscation
Without data, researchers can’t run the analysis.
3. Suspensions are tracked, confiscations are not
DMVs track suspension status, not physical surrender events.
“no research”
You provide no proof that the actual license is removed from the individual, but then extend your complaint to racial disparities. I will respond numerically to those racial disparities.
1) There may be some racism in enforcing the law, but we see black police officers more likely to kill a black person than a white officer killing a black one. Maybe the racially skewed system is the reverse of what you think. We lack complete answers, so your complaint is no reason to dilute the votes of black citizens.
2) Officers usually return the license
3) See #2. Yes, if someone is taken to jail, their possessions are removed from their pockets. Don’t use that as an excuse.
You are big on racial discrimination, but statistics show blacks rob and kill more than whites. In part, that is due to people like you who excuse bad actions. If I were black, I would look at you as my enemy. Don’t start with you aren’t “in my shoes.” That comment is lame. You had wonderful opportunities, including a scholarship. My family faced a lot of discrimination. We don’t complain. We work to get what we want and need. Start thinking of telling your brothers how they should function in society and stop relieving them of their responsibilities.
If you imagine you live your life not complaining. You must not read your own posts, which stray way off topic so you might complain. I remember now why I barely respond to you anymore, you’re a waste of my time.
I discuss policy. You complain. Remove the complaints and attach a policy to them. That will take you much further than your persistent claims of victimhood. Whether you respond to any of my comments is unimportant. I will say what I believe, and don’t require your excuses. I already know them.
So for people who can’t endure the the hardships of obtaining a driver’s license, state issued ID who can’t rent a PO Box, fly on a plane, ship a FedEx package (unbelievable, but true!), attend an Ossoff campaign event, or anything else these days requires a photo ID… what you are basically saying is, their mindset is, “I demand that I be allowed to participate in *democracy*, but I don’t feel any need to participate in society.”
(Do I read your comment correctly?)
States also take away drivers licences. Spend a day in traffic court. The goal isn’t to deny an entire category of people the right to vote (like it used to be). Now it’s nibbling at the percentages. Voting is being made harder for those who are likely to vote against those in power, or who want to be.
Voting is not being made harder. Just takes proper planning and being a responsible adult and citizen.
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.
If an “intellectual” is someone who tries to make a reasoned, rational argument rather than resorting to taunts, then I suppose I’m guilty as charged. I’ll take that over trolling any day.
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.
“your response is to resort to comedy”
Every comment you make here is comedy, albeit much of it is of an extremely low variety.
Ask yourself, why do you always read them. We guess you’re as stupider than the commenter.
“why do you always read them”
I’ve been hoping to find one that presents at least a tiny bit of a challenge to disparage, but it appears that I should give up on that as a thankless task.
Perhaps with Voter ID his record of being elected would be less stellar. You’re lauding a politician who is dead set against Voter integrity measures for the reason that he’s been elected so many times. Why would someone who has been elected so many times resist efforts to ensure honest elections? And this same Raskin has accused Republicans of stealing elections (and will do so again) while opposing Voter ID.
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?
Sam
The dems are still confused on what a women is.
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.
“Blacks will vote dem no matter what…”
So, you are making the case that Afro-Americans are intrinsically and incurably stupid? I do not agree, but you do your thing.
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.
Still at it eh wal? Anger issues? That’s funny, yet you’re the one coming back with insults, shows you’re the one with anger issue;, incapable of just walking away. Time to grow and be an adult. Good luck.
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.
That’s it? Your adult response. Tell us, why is you keep coming back for a fight? As the above anon wrote, easy to be a bully when you’re anonymous. Grow up.
It’s true. Anonymous bloggers on this blog account for most of the posts that are factless and primarily insulting, with certain anonymous figures even congratulating themselves on creating the illusion of agreement. For all we know, *Anon, but not him*, may well be *Anon, the same Anon*. You have no name or icon to distinguish you from the others. Waltrthompson, by contrast, is a distinct individual, identifiable by both name and unique icon.
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.
Funny a twit like you shows up when there’s nothing to comment about.
If someone is losing, its you, your mind.
Hey, post some Latin. Show us how silly you are.
^^^ Homo Erectus. Rogasti pro eo.
@Anonymous
Kamala, *this week*: “Of course people have to prove who they are, but not in a way that makes it almost impossible for them to prove who they are.” *HIC* logic.
Why is impossible for legal citizens with the right to vote and ID that is easily obtainable and free for legal citizens to prove who they are? Hm?
How about the fact that almost all other supposedly civilized nations require some form of identification to vote? We are an outlier. Some require voter eligibility forms which are sent via mail to eligible voters, some require other governmental ID.
Here’s another argument – by a vast majority, U.S. citizens, including minorities, want that requirement. Aren’t the people’s elected representatives supposed to carry out the will of their constituencies?
Counter question: what’s a GOOD argument against requiring voter ID, when election officials flagrantly and admittedly flout the laws governing the votes which may be certified? (See certain Pennsylvania districts in 2024, among other such instances.)
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.