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.”
Raskin really has a problem with reality. he hasn’t been in his right mind for quite a while. So if you want to go along with his theory, can somebody please tell me why I had to provide a picture ID to go visit my brother in the hospital after he had a stroke, none of this makes sense. Raskin doesn’t make any sense, but of course we know that he has to cover up for his party
^^^^the above “Lin” is not me. I hope that Darren or whoever might change the color or design of the identifying moniker which is eerily similar to mine. thanks in advance. However I will add my own comment:
(1) I admit only scanning the comments here, but I do not see any which mention PROVISIONAL votes, i.e., those that are initially put aside to resolve discrepancies or lack of proper ID (photo ID), but ID verification must be resolved no later than the official date for states to turn in their vote tallies. Provisional voting allows a vote even if you do not have photo ID; all states are required under HAVA (signed into law by a Republican President) to provide for provisional voting. So I do not see what the issue is here, other than that photo ID REQUIREMENTS cut down on the number of non-photo ID provisional voting.
(2) Of more concern to me is the validity of the actual piece of photo ID that is presented at the polls (irrespective of divorce/gender/address changes. Although all but two or three states have some form of holographic/lenticular imaging/UV features on state-issued IDs, the gains in generative AI and other developing technologies may eventually compromise even the most sophisticate of systems. What poll workers are actually taking the time to check the authenticity of the physically-presented ID other than address/name/gender changes?
(3) But is this really where most of the fraud comes from in national/federal elections? I don’t think so.
. Second single comment, of course provisional voting. An example of freedom of speech. Without the free flow of speech we would not have heard of provisional voting. Thank you, Lin. Hopefully Raskin will get the message.
The same holds true for absentee ballots, mail-in ballots. They are provisional and counted if the selection is too close to call.
Despite the National threats of 9-11, CoVid 19, and the machinations of foreign enemies to hack and influence elections within the United States, Congress has neglected their Constitutional duty to regulate immigration and allowed a patchwork, piecemeal Counter-Constitutional system to arise. It has been politically easier and more advantageous (profitable) to allow and enable the rise of Sanctuary Cities and States, Immigration Law Firms, U.N. guidelines to supplant Congress in these matters and direct both consensual and non-consensual entry into the nation. Negative impacts are portrayed as minimal and rare while the positives to the economy and culture are touted as the norm, even during the State-sponsored Hyper-Immigration of Biden-Mayorkus 2021-24. There is No direct evidence of widespread non-citizen voting registration or participation in any election ever right? States that want to exert any type of voter ID have normally been slapped down by courts as being suppressive, while States that liberalize registration and voting processes, demand to be trusted to fairly manage their eligible voter rolls and prosecute anyone who’d willingly violate the rules. Perhaps a solution would be an Election Review Commission made up of State appointees that would audit all voter rolls and elections for both suppression AND ineligible/cheating going on. But then why would anyone of Raskin’s mindset and position want a viable solution.
Professor Turley, Why are you overstating the Raskin position in the post heading and in parts of the post narrative when he said “might violate” in the quote you provide? You could still make the same points, but the greater use of “might” would make the post more accurate and objective.
Did you notice the word “MAY Violate” in the bold headline, –or the “would LIKELY violate….” in the first paragraph? ? ?
This bill will also harm rural people, where the nearest office to register might be an hour bus ride away.
You do stand up often ?.
We dont have bus service out here.
Just like re-registering my vehicle, registering to vote can be done online.
Also, I looked up how I can get a copy of my birth certificate. It can be one of THREE ways:
1) Online, (opens a fill in 2 page PDF)
2) Mail in.
3) In person.
Raskin’s 19th Amendment contention is not only constitutionally “meritless,” as euphemistically labeled by the professor, it is also brain-dead stupid. Then again, Raskin is a TDS Maryland Democrat, so what else would you expect?
I’m a citizen since my birth in the Us. My birth certificate misspelled my name which I didn’t find out til in my 20’s. I served in the Vietnam war era. The army didn’t care about my erroneous birth cert. I voted many times. I’m not against voter ID at all. In fact, any one voting in national elections who is not a citizen should pay dearly if caught.
The Trump Administration FINALLY Tells Boasberg to Pound Sand
For over a year, President Donald Trump’s team has tangled with activist judges who act as if they run the executive branch. These activists in black robes think they can dictate policy on border security, national defense, and pretty much everything the executive branch does. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has become the poster child for this judicial overreach. Last week, the Trump administration finally decided it had enough of his illegitimate orders, and told him, in so many words, to pound sand.
By: Matt Margolis – PJmedia ~ February 07, 2026
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/02/07/the-trump-administration-finally-tells-boasberg-to-pound-sand-n4949234
Given that a “Real ID” is required for domestic flights now, does that mean that women are being prevented from domestic flights?
This is not about an ID being presented to vote, it is about being able to register to vote.
You know this and spread this lie about IDs as Turley also does.
Sure jan.
What lie did Turley spread? And I do believe that in order to vote you must register to vote.
“Given that a “Real ID” is required for domestic flights now, does that mean that women are being prevented from domestic flights?”
~+~
Suffrage Jet
Darren Smith:
I’m responding here so that you might see/read this
Hey Darren, may I politely request that you change the color of the “Lin” moniker/avatar/whatever you call it/ posted at 12:09 (followed by my 12:29 one) ^^^above,…. for obvious reasons. Much appreciated, thanks, mr. punster.
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.
No. Raskin did not try to “not certify” Trump’s 2016 election.
Raskin’s challenge to a few electors from Florida was based on the law in Florida that their electors cannot hold public office. In the 2016 Electoral college, 10 of those from Florida did hold public office. President Biden gaveled down the challenge because Raskin had not gotten the support from the Senate.
That is called trying to NOT certify the 2016 election.
You can claim that Raskins efforts were lawful – which they were,
Just as what J6 protestors wanted congress to do on Jan. 6 2021 was also lawful and constitution.
Just not what you desired.
I have ZERO problem with Raskins objection.
But it absolutely was an effort to not certify the election.
But then you are under the delusion that all efforts to stop the certification of an election are unlawful and that is idiotically false.
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.
@Upstate @Olly
Ah, but real ID requires things like proof of residence and social security.
The dems are getting really, really bad at hiding their intentions, thank God, and it’s true: for people here illegally, who are not legally permitted to vote, those things are indeed impossible, without fraud.
My real ID took mere minutes once I had gathered the requisite materials.
Was your name changed by adoption? You’ll need copies of the adoption papers. Did your name change due to marriage. You’ll need copies of the marriage license. Did your name change due to divorce? You’ll need copies of the divorce decree.
Are these more likely to apply to women?
Don’t get your panties in a twist there little boy. This doesn’t affect you because it is intended to not affect you.
My wife had to have copies to change her name to mine.
I had to have a copy of my divorce decree to get our marriage license.
Both were easy enough. You have to have them in the first place to get married or divorced. Just kind of a given to have them handy, preferably in a fire proof container. It is not rocket science. Dont need a college degree. Just some planning.
When my wife and I moved to a red state she needed her marriage certificate to get her drivers license and guess what…she got the marriage ctf and got her license.
Every woman that changed her name when married fly on planes, buys liquor, gets federal help if needed, gets on medicare and checks into hotels. Do you know how they do these things? They show a damn license. Now Raskin, that red diaper baby, says needing a license is so onerous as to be an affront to the 19th A. What a joke.
Olly,
“ 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.”
Are you sure about that? Have you ever had to seek certain documents, original copies, etc after years or decades of not needing them? It’s more complicated than you think.
Tell us you want illegals to vote without telling us.
In most of the country you can trivially get a duplicate birth certificate at your county courthouse.
You probably can request one online.
You do not need original copies, you need OFFICIAL copies – they are not the same thing.
Have you ever had to get a passport ?
While you are correct that MANY currently issued Drivers licenses do not meet the requirements of the SAVE act – including many issued REAL IDs.
You are not correct that a real ID can not serve as sole proof of identity and citizenship.
I would note that the proof of identity and citizenship required by the SAVE act is not different from what is required to get a job.
Employers are required to have all new hires provide proof of eligability to work in the US.
You MUST prove that you are a citizen or an eligible non-citizen.
The required proof of citizenship is exactly the same as the SAVE Act.
It is only dramatically less if all the legal paperwork is readily at hand. If a birth certificate is lost, then there is a cost of time and money to get a copy. If there is a marriage and/or a divorce, the same applies. If there is an adoption or a legal change to a name, same extra effort.
The problem isn’t proving who a person is, it is providing a complete document change back to the place of their birth. Any spelling errors by anyone along that path who decided that Ollie is the correct way to spell Olly and the chain is broken and lawyers and judges are going to be required to fix it. Sorry, Oily. Gotta spell it right.
The federal government has all this information, but they will only use it to create obstacles. If your records don’t match their records, and their records are wrong, then you are no longer a citizen, no matter being born in the USA to US citizens tracing lineage back to the so-called “Founding Fathers.”
Extra effort?
I just looked up how to get an official copy of my birth certificate in my home state. It can be done one of THREE ways:
1) Online (opens a 2 page fill in PDF)
2) Mail in.
3) In person.
$21.
The proof of citizenship for the SAVE act is the SAME as the proof of citizenship required of citizens to work in the US.
If you are a US citizen and you are hired for a new job in the US, you must provide proof of ID and proof of citizenship.
Voter ID threatens dems ability to get illegals to the polls and to find “thousands of mail in ballots” on a whim.
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?
The federal government ywould have to provide voters all necessary ID documents free of charge, lest it run foul of the 24th Amendment. Voters should not have to spend money to be able to vote.
They also have to come clothed. Does the government have an obligation to buy them clothes?
They wouldn’t be spending money to be able to vote; they would be spending money for an ID that must be presented in many different situations. It could be a problem for dead people and illegals which is the point.
Does the Voter ID have to prove identity or citizenship? People who do not intend to fly are not getting real ID.
There was a time when a citizen had to show – PROVE he had skin in the game and not just some propertyless vassal that could be bought to vote. Now the score of sheeple with no skin in the game all deem themselves worthy of a vote – and some multiple votes. We should go back to some founding principals here in regards to skin in the game as opposed to no ID trolls voting as they are paid to do.
You are required to provide the same documents to your employer everytime you get a new job.
For some cheating at the polls may be their job.
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.
Turley made claims Raskin is saying something he did not say. Pushing a false narrative is far from just mere opinion.
Rat skin is just vomiting out party parables that only those drinking that koolaide would applaud.
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/
Upstate, it is the hypocrisy that aggravates.
Hullbobby, you idiot. We are not talking about voting. None. We are talking about REGISTERING.
In order to REGISTER which IS the issue with the SAVE Act is the proof of citizenship requirement and its requirement that EVERY person wanting to register MUST do so IN PERSON.
The Act requires every ID document match the NAME on the birth certificate EXACTLY. Women have to go thru extra steps to prove their name on their ID matches their birth certificate. When they get divorced, married, etc. they MUST prove their name IS what their birth certificate says it is. THAT is the problem facing millions of women.
States can issue forms but it’s NOT guaranteed that they will process them in a timely manner or cost extra.
Your illegal immigrant nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
A REAL ID is NOT proof of citizenship. ICE won’t accept those as proof. Neither will a voter registrar office clerk. Despite the fact that in order do have a REAL ID star affixed to your driver’s license REQUIRES you to present proof of citizenship be means of a birth certificate or valid passport.
Do you get it now?
How did my wife get her license when we moved to a red state since she is married with a name change?? Guess what genius, in order to drive, a privilege, not a right, she had to show her marriage license and then got her DL.
Now maybe we could have used DLs to register to vote but you radical leftists started giving DLs to illegals in many blue states. Of course you also encouraged anyone getting a DL to register to vote thereby registering ILLEGALS to vote.
Answer this liar, would you be ok with just requiring a DL when voting? Would you be ok with checking mail in ballots with signatures after only sending ballots to those requesting them, not mailing them to everyone.
The bottom line is you want to make it so easy to vote that illegals can vote and cheaters can vote multiple times and activists can use mail in ballots to vote illegally.
You want to cheat, we want to stop you from cheating.
X
absolutely a tiny minority of people may require more than one peice of documentation to get a real ID compliant drivers license.
So ?
You are already required to have REAL ID compliant ID to get onto an airplane.
Democrats had no problems passing that law.
I Beleive all states have REAL ID compliant drivers license programs – most people probably already have a REAL ID compliant drivers license
and if they do not – they likely will withing the next couple of years no matter what.
Alternately you can carry your passport or passport ID card with you.
I have my passport ID card in my wallet. Even if your DL is not REAL ID compliant, a passport or passport ID will work anywhere the US govenrment requires ID.
“Even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task”
So complex that the DMV does it all the time throughout the country.
You register to vote at county officers, you can request a passport at the SAME county offices – they already know what to do.
Have you never gotten a passport ?
In FACT most required documents are NOT checked for anything beyond obvious forgeries.
People can already get forged birth certificates, green cards, social security cards, drivers licenses, passports, of varying quality
Providing forged documents to goverment officials is a crime.
If you provide forged documents to vote – you are likely committing two serious crimes.
You may not get caught, you probably will not get caught.
But far fewer people will take the risk.
And even if you manage to vote a few times, people regularly using forged documents DO eventually get caught,
and then they get charged, with a whole raft or crimes.
“one that election officials and motor vehicle departments often do not have the resources or training to perform.”
As noted all DMVs already meet the real ID requirements.
“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.””
False, the law PREVENTED no one from registering, it merely delayed them until they obtained required documentation.
I am sure that non-citizens voting in Kansas is very rare. Kansas is NOT were the huge voter fraud problem is.
Further Voter ID requirements are NOT primarily about preventing non-citizens from voting.
They are about assuring that a REAL PERSON must present themselves to register to vote and to vote.
Mickey Mouse, Superman and Ronald Reagan are on the voter registration lists for EVERY state in the country.
There are myriads of dead people on voter registration lists.
We have passed federal laws requiring states to rgularly clean their voter registration lists. Many states – usually blue states DO NOT COMPLY/
This “we will only follow the laws we like” nonsense of democrats is common throughout the country.
With many states having mailin voting and mail in voter registration – there is never a requirement for proof that there is a REAL living person,
that is voting or seeking to register.
Is it really beyond your ability to see how easily that can be abused ?
This is the part that Turley left out about the SAVE act,
“It’s designed to exclude eligible voters.”
And REAL ID was designed to exclude eligable fliers ?
This is just nonsense. 80% of people want VOTER ID
77% of democrats.
“ 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.”
Correct – that is the point. To VOTE a REAL PERSON must at some point present themselves to an election official.
” acceptable delivery methods.”
The acceptable delivery method is that if you wish to vote YOU must present your actual BODY to an election official at some point.
YOUR physical body is actually a part of the documentation process.
It does not matter how your”documents” are delivered. What matters is that at some point a LIVE HUMAN must show up and be associated with that documentation.
“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.”
Except for the “high stakes” part you are correct. Most people already do not vote, the stakes are NOT very high at all.
If you want to vote you will do what is needed. If you choose to register with REAL ID – you go through a process ONCE,
that not only allows you to drive, but travel by air and vote. If you choose some other method to register, then you present YOURSELF
and the required documentation ONCE and get the appropriate ID,
“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. ”
So ? Do not register someone who does not provide documentation.
I had to fly to St Croix a couple of years ago. I had paid for my ticket, I had my drivers license. I had my passport ID card,
The attendant at the airline refused to give me a ticket because even though a passport ID card is as good as a passport for travel in North America, and to US territories, It is NOT acceptable for travel BY AIR to us territories in the Caribbean. I could go to mexico with it,
I could go to st. Croix on a cruise ship with it. But not on an airplane.
These quirks are part of life – absolutely we should fix them were possible.
But they are NOT part of some plot.
“The bill also authorizes private individuals to sue election officials under the same circumstances.”
Yes, because we already know that when a government is controlled by democrats – the law will not be enforced.
VOTER ID laws would be meaningless if blue states and democrat presidents chose to ignore them.
That is exactly what we see with illegal immigration right now.
If citizens can sue in court – then we KNOW that blue states and democrats presidents will enforce the law to avoid barrages of citizen lawsuits.
“Together, these provisions could encourage overly cautious behavior”
Have you ever been to ANY government office ? Whatever you want, they are ALWAYS seeking to say NO.
It is not just over caution, it is public choice theory in action. All govenrment power is always used to the benefit of those in government.
“Government-issued driver’s licenses—including REAL IDs—as well as military or tribal IDs do not satisfy the bill’s requirements.”
FALSE
The save act EXPLICITLY allows a REAL ID compliant drivers license as the SOLE document to register or to vote.
So long as that REAL ID compliant DL includes the mark establishing citizenship.
REAL ID does not manditorially require proof of citizenship – if you do not provide a birth certificate or naturalization papers when getting a REAL ID, then it will not include the proof of citizenship mark, and you will need additional documents to register.
I would note that the vast majority of people provided their birth certificate to get a drivers license – I did 50 years ago.
That proves citizenship.
“The SAVE Act would change the way all citizens register to vote upon enactment. ”
Yep.
“It would upend online voter registration”
Absolutely.
“make it impossible to mail in a registration application”
Nope, you can start the process online, but you must show up in person ONCE to complete the registration.
I would note MOST state allow you to register when you get or renew your drivers license.
So you STILL kill two birds with one stone,
You just MUST show up IN PERSON ONCE.
“eliminate voter registration drives.”
Nope, but if it did – great.
“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.”
How do any of these women ever get drivers licenses, or passports, or car loans or open bank accounts ?
“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.”
False, while it SHOULD require you to go to the election officer to change your address, it does not require revalidating citizenship.
“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.”
False, REAL ID includes a citizenship mark for people who provided proof of citizenship when they got their real ID.
If you did NOT provide proof of citizenship – then your real ID will not include a citizenship mark.
but you can correct that OR bring some additional proof of citizenship to register to vote.
“Just as REAL ID is not enough to prove citizenship when ICE demands proof of citizenship when they stop you on the street.”
Real ID IS enough to prove citizenship IF you provided proof of citizenship when you got your real ID.
“Raskin is not wrong. Turley is pushing a false narrative.”
of course he is – as are you.
John Say,
Great take down of the slow and dumb one!!
UpstateFarmer
Why do you feel compelled to constantly post these gratuitously sycophantic congratulatory comments in response to posts from the other MAGA morons ???
You are like an emotionally immature little child desperately trying to convince the “big boys” that you are one of them, and begging to join their secret club.
You obviously spend your entire day here relentlessly reading EVERYTHING that is posted, and constantly posting your stupid little congratulatory comments.
Who is taking care of your supposed farm while you waste your life here ????
John Say has taken a break from watching Youtube videos featuring online cranks to post yet another screed of of his psychotic verbal diarrhea in his usual stream of consciousness, and pressure of speech style, further confirming his gravely serious mental illnesses of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
His compulsive expression of every disconnected, irrelevant and nonsensical thought that flitters through his impaired mind is becoming increasingly bizarre in ever more lengthy and discursive diatribes of irrational gibberish and gobbledegook .
Does anyone here actually bother to read this complete nonsense that he spews here on a daily basis ???????
He clearly has absolutely no life outside of this pitifully miserable excuse for a legal blog except for watching Youtube videos from cranks with whackadoodle conspiracy theories, which he posts here on a regular basis as “evidence” that he is correct in his delusional and psychotic thinking.
Yes, the SAVE act will prevent voting without a real person ever presenting themselves.
That is one of its major POINTS. At some point in the voting process, every ballot accepted should have PROOF that an actual human cost that ballot.
One that was alive, a citizen, and eligible to vote in the specific election.
You are correct that you can get a REAL ID without proving citizenship.
You are not correct that you can get a REAL ID that does prove citizenship.
TS:DR
I presume TS:DR means “Too Stupid : Didn’t Read” in response to John Say’s psychotic diatribe.
X, “However, no state’s REAL ID indicates citizenship status, and legally residing noncitizens can obtain a REAL ID.”
I understood that states issuing non-compliant REAL ID were required to include language such as “Not for REAL ID purposes” etc.?”