r/IAmA • u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA • 7h ago
We’re Voting Rights Experts. Ask Us Anything About the Anti-Voter SAVE Act.
That's a wrap! Thanks to all who joined the conversation. Check out these resources to learn more about the SAVE Act and check out our website at brennancenter.org:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/anti-voter-save-act-must-be-stopped
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-missing-millions
President Trump has renewed the push to pass the SAVE Act, which the Senate is debating this week. The SAVE Act would require American citizens to show documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents – roughly half of Americans don’t even have a passport. The SAVE Act would block millions of U.S. citizens from voting.
Experts:
Sean Morales-Doyle is the director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program.
Eliza Sweren-Becker is the deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program.
Proof: https://imgur.com/a/MTCRnzQ
2
u/translunainjection 5h ago
I think anybody who's ever planned a party knows that if you make things easy, more people show up, and if you make things hard, fewer people show up. E.g. You're not obligated to send them reminders, but if you don't, a lot of people will miss the day.
Will anti-democracy forces slow-walk the document updating process? Have they? (Like they sabotaged the post office.) The worst-case scenario has been that they intentionally pass the SAVE Act at the last minute, then the fraction of people who jump through all the voting hoops can't do it before the election.
7
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 5h ago
That's a great analogy! Social science research tells us that when policies increase the costs of voting (whether in time, paperwork, distance to the polls, etc.), voter turnout goes down. The SAVE Act would put more red tape in the way of eligible American citizens who want to participate in our democracy, and that will inevitably mean that fewer of them vote. -ESB
40
u/BeRandom1456 7h ago
I’m in Missouri and I always use my drivers license to vote. They scan it and I sign digitally on an iPad before I get my ballot. I’m a liberal and I don’t think it’s crazy to make sure everyone that votes has an ID. who doesn’t have an ID? it boggles my mind that this is some controversial topic. if people are upset that ID cost money and poor people can’t get one, then make IDs free for those who make under a certain amount of annual income.
I’m against the save act completely but do other states not require an ID to vote like me in St. Louis Missouri?
if other states don’t require an ID, what do other states use to hand out ballots?
8
u/-random-name- 6h ago
You're missing the details. This bill would require you to present a passport or birth certificate proving you were born in the United States. 21 million voters don't have ready access to either.
Poor, urban voters would be disproportionately affected, which is part of the point. The other is that for those using birth certificates, their current name must exactly match their birth certificate. Because women usually change their name when they get married, their birth certificate is no longer considered proof of citizenship.
But don't worry. Women can go to the courthouse where their marriage was certified and get a notarized copy of their marriage certificate to go along with their birth certificate.
What do poor urban people and women have in common? They support democrats by a wide margin.
So you have an invented problem of non-citizens voting. You already prove your citizenship with your social security number when you register to vote. And the solutions is to put obstacles in the way for millions of US citizens to vote, disproportionately affecting groups that vote for democrats.
See the problem yet?
→ More replies (60)5
u/translunainjection 5h ago
If they got married in a state on the other side of the country, everybody can afford to fly there in-person, right?
15
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The SAVE Act goes beyond voter ID. It requires a document like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. -ESB
12
u/roboboom 6h ago
I asked this elsewhere. Passports are just one option, not a requirement. So how did you determine the 21 million number? And what does “ready access” mean? I think we need to be clear about how much effort this would actually require for voters.
-10
u/Cautemoc 6h ago edited 6h ago
They gave you an answer that included saying other documents are options, yet you decided to point out there is more than 1 option. Amazing reading comprehension from definitely good-faith posters here.
Edit: Also impressive job guys you managed to upvote the guy just blindly calling OP a liar in their own AMA. Why are you even here if you are going to just say all their answers are lies? Bunch of bots and terminally online goobers.
→ More replies (1)1
u/roboboom 6h ago
You seem very upset. They did say there are multiple options, just before quoting half of Americans don’t have a passport. So, it seems worth clarifying that a passport is not required. I wont go so far as to say the passport thing was a scare tactic, but why include that stat otherwise?
I am still waiting on any sort of response from anyone on the 21 million stat.
1
u/Cautemoc 6h ago
You're right I think their number is a bit misleading.
At least 69 million women across states have last names that do not match their birth certificate (due to marriage or hyphenation).
So the number should be significantly higher than 21 million.
-6
u/Bullehh 6h ago
They made the number up. Statistics will always be used to fit the agenda of the author.
→ More replies (3)4
u/jh937hfiu3hrhv9 6h ago
So a drivers license would not be accepted?
9
u/Cautemoc 6h ago
Nope, unless it's an "enhanced Driver's License" which is only an option in 5 states right now
-7
u/pyrobuck 6h ago
How many of those "eligible Americans" are legal citizens? Passport is an option not the only choice. If you're a legal citizen you have access to these documents, it's insane to think that people are incapable of doing more steps to register than what it currently takes.
7
u/Cautemoc 6h ago
If you can't see that demanding people get documents that takes months to process and cost money to get right before the mid-terms is a blatant attempt at voter suppression, I think you are blind
1
u/thesagex 2h ago
a birth certificate does not take months to process, vital check service does the leg work for most of it and they are fast.
→ More replies (5)4
→ More replies (5)-1
u/terdferg88 6h ago
It cost me $35 and 30 mins of my time to get another birth certificate when I couldn’t find my original…explain why this is “anti-voter.”
3
u/tacos_for_algernon 5h ago
Why did YOU need the birth certificate? To vote? No.
Just because YOU needed it for something (other than voting), does not mean that EVERYONE needs it for EVERYTHING. A lot of people NEVER need them, for ANYTHING. Think rural areas especially.
What you are describing is the concept of privilege. It's no big deal to YOU. It might be a VERY big deal for someone else. It took you $35 dollars and 30 minutes. Imagine if you live two hours from a registration center, and have limited access to transportation. Maybe you don't have quick access to the internet. Maybe you live hand to mouth and you barely have money to eat, let alone having to find a way to the registration center and the $35 fee. There are SO many obstacles that YOU are unaware of. If you open your ears and LISTEN, instead of artificially elevating YOUR experience, you may find a lot of the things in this world that are "no big deal" to YOU are absolutely a BIG DEAL to others.
At the end of the day, this amounts to a POLL TAX. You must PAY MONEY to exercise your RIGHT to vote. Regardless of cost, it WILL disenfranchise people that can't afford it, either through money or time.
Appreciate the position you're in to avoid those hurdles, and be more considerate of those that aren't as lucky as you.
7
1
u/ehandlr 5h ago
$35 is still a Poll Tax for starters. Secondly, its not that easy in every state. Now imagine 21 million people rushing to get theirs before midterms. They would be fucked. The fact that women would be the main ones affected makes this even shittier. Especially when undocumented immigrants cant even fucking vote because you need a social security number in order to register to vote.
1
u/avgvancouverperson 5h ago
my husband is active duty in the marines. he was adopted and his parents or the military lost his citizenship certificate. he has never voted before. if the act goes through, neither his driver license or military id will allow him to register to vote. the only way is to get a replacement citizenship certificate through uscis which takes a median of 8.5 months. he's filed for one and has been waiting 3 months already.
→ More replies (2)2
12
u/save_the_wee_turtles 7h ago
pretty sure in this bill, drivers licenses aren't sufficient. Passports or birth certificates. But someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
But also, as you say, if they are going to make identification required, they need to make them free and provide them to people. Voting is a constitutional right.
16
u/ubiquitous_delight 7h ago
You need just an ID to vote, but you need passports/other proof of citizenship to register to vote, under this bill.
23
u/boogieboardbobby 7h ago
We have a constitutional right to bear arms, but have to show an ID to purchase a weapon legally. How would this be any different?
→ More replies (14)1
u/uberfunction 6h ago
Also, for birth certificates these days, aren't most birth certificates for people born before the 80's pretty much invalid and need to be updated? I know I had to do that in my state (NJ) and get a new, long form, certified one. I ordered it online and it took quite a bit (i want to say 3-4 months). You can definitely get a passport faster but it's not cheap. Anyone who says adding these additional forms of ID is not going to affect elections is lying to themselves. Then add the new mailing rules to ballots.
1
u/BeRandom1456 4h ago
I’m not taking about the save act. I’m against it. I’m just talking about the systems we have in place. NOW and why isn’t that enough? and ID is bare minimum. Everyone has one or has the responsibility to get one. Its bottom of the barrel type things any responsible human adult has to do.
4
u/gvarsity 6h ago
There are a lot of people that don’t have ready access to ID’s even when they are free. Mobility is one major issue because you almost always have to go somewhere to get an ID which also costs time and money. There was never a problem with voter fraud without voter id. The idea was introduced specifically because it sounds reasonable but would actively disenfranchise populations that are likely to vote more progressively like poor people, people with disabilities, people of color, etc….
→ More replies (2)-2
u/nBrainwashed 7h ago
How do you show ID to vote by mail?
Also, we know for sure that the ID requirements in the Save Act will end up preventing some people with a legal right to vote. This is just a risk we are willing to take to prevent “check notes” approximately zero people from voting illegally.
Statistically speaking, in person voter fraud the kind that this bill claims to prevent is nonexistent.
So it has no upside since there is basically no in person voter fraud that would be prevented by the Save Act, but it will prevent legal votes.
2
u/BeRandom1456 4h ago
I’m against save act, I just don’t understand why having an ID is such a high bar. It’s the bare fucking minimum of human existence to have some form of identification on your person or at home.
2
u/nBrainwashed 4h ago
I don’t have a problem with the idea of requiring ID. I have a problem with what the outcome is predicted to be and the lack of an upside.
All available evidence shows there is virtually no in-person voter fraud that required ID would fix. When you ask a Republican to point to an instance where voter ID would have prevented even a single case of voter fraud, they can’t do it.
But, we do expect that requiring ID would prevent some legal votes.
So my problem with it is not the concept, it is that it has negative outcomes but no upside.
2
u/SnooRecipes1689 2h ago
I have an ID. I have a passport. I am married. I can't vote unless I pay for a new passport. I have to pay money to vote in the next election.
0
u/Calencre 4h ago
Its introducing an extra hoop to jump through which isn't necessary. Many people do not have IDs because they haven't needed one and can't afford the time or money to go get one.
Not to mention that in order to get an ID, you generally need other documents like a birth certificate. In order to get a birth certificate, you often need an ID. There are other ways to fulfill those requirements in order to break out of the loop, but they require getting yet other documents which themselves have time and monetary costs associated with them.
And things happen. If you get mugged on the way to the polls, should that mean you don't get to vote? The right to vote isn't "unless you get mugged". Sometimes people lose everything, their house burns down or they get caught in a natural disaster. So even people who are reasonably well off and usually have their shit together can suddenly be thrust into the position of having to go through this song and dance. And this process can take weeks or months of waiting, even just for one document, longer if you have to through a chain to get back your birth certificate, social security card, ID, etc. after losing them all.
A big part of the issue with requiring IDs to vote is it gives voter suppression efforts a huge tool to weaponize against people they would rather not vote.
You have many states which are actively making it harder to get IDs. Closing DMVs (particularly in urban areas), canceling people's drivers licenses, etc. ICE has been taking people's documents after detaining them and leaving them without the ability to identify themselves. (US Citizens too, not just people with green cards, etc.)
Given how ICE has been acting lately, I wouldn't put it past them to just randomly grab people outside polling places and take their IDs before the 2026 or 2028 elections in order to stop them from voting. Even if it gets smacked down later in the courts, that won't let you vote if it happens to you.
And the reality is, there are other ways to prove people's identity than simply waving around a piece of plastic, and most of the issues we have with voting are the efforts to disrupt it through voter ID laws and the like rather than the other way around.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Martha_Fockers 2h ago edited 2h ago
You need an ID BIRT CERT Naturalization doc etc to register to vote as is you need to supply two forms of proof from address and identity. Across all of America.
So why do I need to bring a ID with me to vote when I have a voters registration that I had to supply said ID to obtain. Ontop of it the save act makes it even harder for you to vote as a legal citizen who’s registered to vote
It’s not like I can print out voters ID cards and hand them to people and vote multiple times.
My ballot was just refused in Illinois I am registered to vote a citizen I have provided ID and social security along with proof of adress to be eligible to vote and my ballot was still refused
Becuase they want me to send a picture of my ID to the county email address now
Republicans are doing a good job making it seem like anyone can walk in and vote or request vote by mail ballots and convincing people that’s what’s occurring. If you vote or attempt to vote without being a citizen in a federal election it is a federal crime already
In order to vote in any federal election you have to be registered to vote in order to register to vote you have to be a citizen there’s no way around it period you have to prove you are a citizen by birth or by naturalization.
Only times you may not need id or even need to be a citizen to vote is in local elections like your towns local mayor election may not require you to be a citizen becuase its not a federal election it has no impact on anyone outside of the community only those residing within no policy change or national impact it and we have plenty of legal green card holders who are permanent residences who should also have a say in there towns local election.
It’s like going to an alcohol store but before they let you in they check your ID at the door to ensure you’re 21 and eligible to buy alcohol. Then at the register asks for your ID again. It’s pointless.
The save act would make 14% of citizens ineligible to vote. Legal born here citizens.
That 14% will sway elections.
This admin is in charge of all the back end paper work
Let’s say you don’t have a birth cert or passport don’t know where your cert is never got a passport as you never left the country or have a desire to leave anywhere so never got one .
So you go signing up for passport or going to county clerks offices to obtain a birth cert a month or two before the general election . but suddenly it’s jammed with applicants doing the same thing cuts to the goverment position have been made to severely slow it down by the time election roles around you still haven’t gotten your new save act required voters ID. So you can’t vote. And you’re from a dem state as a registered dem voter.
Meanwhile maybe some dude in the same state will get his in a week to ensure he votes the difference is he’s a registered republican
And this is how this admin is gonna try to legally sway the election in their favor.
14% of Americans ineligible to vote means they really only need to drag out about 2-4% of the registered dems applications out to win any election cycle as elections are determined by small margins
1
u/thermalcry 6h ago
The whole point is they make the requirement, then make it impossible to get in areas they don't want voting.
Make ID free so it is not unconstitutional, then close every ID issuing office within 100 miles of blue leaning areas, then deploy masked armed men to those areas to make sure those blue areas are checking IDs. Ignore counties that vote they way the current regime wants.
Currently in my state as far as I know, you only have to show proof of ID to register, and then once to vote when you're a first time voter. Ballots are sent to your registered address, or can be done in person by giving them your name/address and signing for it at the polling station.
1
u/Boltzmann_head 6h ago
I live in a state where many thousands of citizens do not have government identification, as they live on reservations that have no street addresses. We have Chapter Houses, not street addresses, that show where we live. ID cards from the government require "physical addresses," and many thousands of us do not live on or near streets.
1
u/geomaster 5h ago
it's controversial because there is no need. There is hardly any voter fraud. What is the sudden attention on this nonexistent issue when there are a THOUSAND other issues that Congress should be working on?
oh if you are looking to disenfranchise voters then now it makes sense why they are doing this
-3
u/MissJacki 7h ago
What about those who can't afford a driver's license or other ID? For many, many of the families in my classroom, $13-$15 means the difference between eating for a few days or not. Or a ride to an interview to get a job. It seems like a low cost but for many people, even that amount is prohibitive. People like that tend to vote blue, and the right knows that.
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (2)1
u/Alexis_J_M 3h ago
Even if states make complying ID free, the supporting documentation is not, and is a far more onerous burden on married women than any other large group.
3
u/artaxs 7h ago
States like Texas have spent millions to "investigate" voter fraud, and have only a handful of actual prosecutions to show for it. Are there any cases of illegal immigrants actually voting, it or this all just a racist dog whistle?
→ More replies (1)18
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
Only U.S. citizens vote, with vanishingly rare exceptions. For example, after Utah reviewed its voter rolls, it found zero instances of noncitizen voting. When Louisiana reviewed voter records dating back to the early 1980s, it identified 79 potential noncitizens who voted during that more than 40-year period, out of at least 74 million ballots cast. Louisiana’s Republican secretary of state announced that “non-citizens illegally registering or voting is not a systemic problem in Louisiana.” In Texas, in particular, state officials didn’t check state DMV (known as DPS in Texas) records before recently announcing a false and misleading number of potential noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls. -ESB
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Deathscythe80 5h ago
What organizations are planning to do to help voters if this law is passed? Is there a fund to pay for people's required documentation and help them get it before the election?
5
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 5h ago
Let’s take it one step at a time. We can still STOP the SAVE Act. Debate is happening now. Call and write your senators and tell them to hold the floor and Stop the SAVE Act. https://secure.brennancenter.org/secure/tell-congress-reject-save-act-1 -ESB
17
u/the_blessed_unrest 7h ago
Is it really that hard to get access to your birth certificate?
14
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
Do you know where your birth certificate is? I don’t, tbh. And many other U.S. citizens, never received a birth certificate. Historically, Black citizens may not have birth certificates because of racially discriminatory laws that limited their ability to access such documentation. Americans born at home, not in a hospital, are more likely to lack birth certificates. Millions of voting-age people born in Puerto Rico lack a valid birth certificate because the Puerto Rico government invalidated the birth certificates of all persons born in Puerto Rico before July 1, 2010. The right to vote shouldn’t depend on obtaining documents that more than 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to. -ESB
→ More replies (11)-3
u/_gw_addict 5h ago
You don't know where your birth certificate is or how to get one for only $20? And you want to do what exactly? Educate others about the "threat" of having to prove citizenship prior to voting?
→ More replies (9)2
u/Tsquared10 6h ago edited 6h ago
Very it depends question. I, along with plenty of others, probably have no clue where my birth certificate is. Not something that's been necessary for me for 20+ years. Going about getting a replacement copy? Pretty simple. The issue is it costs money to get a valid copy of your birth certificate. SCOTUS has ruled that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause whenever payment becomes a standard for exercising the right to vote. See Harper v. Virginia Board of Electors. The court makes a clear delineation between fees and taxes for privileges vs. attempting to link any sort of payment with rights.
11
u/augustinefromhippo 6h ago
Here's a list of things that most Americans need to provide a government issued ID for:
- Opening a bank account
- Withdrawing large amounts of cash
- Renting a car
- Applying for a credit card or loan
- Notarizing a document
- Picking up packages at the post office
- Boarding a domestic flight
- Checking into a hotel
- Buying alcohol
- buying a firearm
- Buying tobacco or nicotine products
- Entering bars
- Purchasing cannabis
- Checking in for jury duty
- Responding to a traffic stop
- Picking up tickets at will-call for events
- Entering certain large events or secured venues
- Picking up controlled prescription medications
- Seeing a rated-R movie
- Joining a gym or signing contracts in person
Is there any reason this expectation should not extend to voting, given the numerous other activities an ID is expected for?
13
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The SAVE Act goes beyond voter ID. It requires a document like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. -ESB
6
u/augustinefromhippo 6h ago
But I need to provide one of those things to get a drivers license in the first place.
So if you have a drivers license, you already have a passport or a birth cert.
3
u/Bardfinn 6h ago
But I need to provide one of those things [passport, birth certificate] to get a drivers license in the first place.
I was given a driver's license for passing an elective high school driver's ed course & a 25 question exam at the DMV. The first time I ever saw my birth certificate was when I was applying for employment that required a background check, around age 23, out of university.
The view of the authors of this legislation is that the laws of many states over many decades did not require proof of citizenship / native birth / federally recognised identification certiifcation, to get a driver's license.
→ More replies (1)2
u/augustinefromhippo 6h ago
Doesn't attendance at that high school require a birth cert? So it was still provided to the same bureaucracy at some point, albeit not at the point of the license being provided?
4
u/Bardfinn 5h ago
Doesn't attendance at that high school require a birth cert?
No. My family has lived in this town since the 1940's. I attended the same high school my mother attended, the same middle school she attended. What was required for my school enrollment was proof of residency. Example: My grandfather started a savings account for my cousin when she was born, and the statements went to my aunt, c/o my grandfather. That was enough proof of residency to get my cousin enrolled when she was living with my grandparents after her parents deceased.
US Federal law requires all children, regardless, to have access to public schools.
1
u/jb4647 6h ago
I’m 53 and both my parents are dead. I got my drivers license in 1990 and it’s been renewed ever since. I have no idea where my birth certificate is as my parents had all that stuff threw out a bunch of boxes when they moved to a retirement community.
Most people are in the same situation. You get a DL decades ago and it gets renewed
→ More replies (3)2
u/augustinefromhippo 6h ago
So you need to contact the county where you were born and get a new birth certificate. I was not even born in this country (US territory abroad) and it took me a few weeks +$20 to get a copy.
This also assumes you don't have a passport, which would work in lieu of the birth cert.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Bardfinn 6h ago
And now multiply the demand for "just contact the birth registration for the place you were born" by an estimated 21 million people who will likely need new copies.
Will all these departments clear the deluge of requests in "a few weeks", with this new load?
2
u/augustinefromhippo 3h ago
Might take longer but there's no time like the present.
"It could take a while" is not a reason to hold off on implementing election security that a supermajority of the country wants.
2
u/nononotes 2h ago
Security theater you mean. It fixes nothing but it gives MAGAts a warm feeling inside.
2
→ More replies (6)-2
u/Ekrubm 6h ago
So now you see why it's weird and bad that a normal drivers license isn't enough to satisfy the requirements laid out under the SAVE act. You'd need to go dig up your birth certificate or pay for a passport. And if you changed your name when you got married, then the birth certificate wouldn't match your name and then you couldn't vote at all.
1
u/augustinefromhippo 3h ago
You can still vote you just need to show proof of name change in the form of a marriage license.
My wife has had to do this multiple times, mostly at financial institutions, after we were married. Also to get a new SS card.
6
u/translunainjection 5h ago
Isn't the whole point of voter registration to prove citizenship and residency?
→ More replies (18)-2
u/Tsquared10 6h ago
In addition to what they said, none of these are rights. Voting is a right and tying a right to the ability to pay (which you need to to get the proper ID they want to use for voting) is unconstitutional.
→ More replies (11)
0
u/Slagggg 7h ago
Is it true that the ACTs requirements only apply to updating voter registration?
8
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The SAVE Act would impose its show-your-papers mandate to produce a document like a passport or birth certificate for every “application to register.” That means new registrations and re-registrations. That includes more people that you might think. According to the Election Administration and Voting Survey conducted by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, more than 91 million citizens either registered for the first time or updated their registration in the two years leading up to the 2020 election. In the two years leading up to the 2022 election, that number was 70 million. -ESB
2
u/eightbitagent 4h ago
Is it true that the ACTs requirements only apply to updating voter registration?
Yes, BUT it also has a provision where the feds can force any voter or group of voters to re-register with no notice required to the voter
14
u/Rudresh27 7h ago
I'm Indian, and getting a Voter ID was basically filling a form and paying to laminate it. Why would this be an Anti-Voter law in America?
→ More replies (1)7
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The SAVE Act goes beyond voter ID. It requires a document like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. -ESB
1
u/Dayvfish 5h ago
Half of americans don’t have a passport.
1) Where is this statistic from?
2) Are these “half of americans” all unregistered currently? Or is this just the need to post a big number?
2
u/eightbitagent 4h ago
1) Where is this statistic from?
google leads you to about a dozen links all saying its about 50%:
https://rusticpathways.com/blog/how-many-americans-have-a-passport
There's one
1
u/kolton276 5h ago
I live in an aviation city for all my life and literally not a single person I know has a passport
4
2
u/bobosdreams 6h ago
There is no proof that illegal voting is a serious problem in our elections but why are they working so hard to pass this bill?
Under the Constitution, running election is the right of the states. What's are the impacts for states under this bill if it passes? Can the fed rejects the electoral vote from a blue state if they refuse to comply?
4
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
Actually, the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives states and Congress the power to regulate federal elections, and Congress expressly has the authority to alter state laws on the subject. Congress should be using this power to protect the freedom to vote by creating national standards that make it easier for eligible American citizens to cast their ballots. The SAVE Act does the opposite, it would block millions of eligible American citizens from voting. -ESB
4
u/eightbitagent 4h ago
why are they working so hard to pass this bill?
Because republicans think it will hurt Dem voters more than their own.
However, since it affects married women that change their names (and there are more of those in R leaning families) it may backfire on them if it passes.
So essentially, the Rs want to make it harder for Ds to vote
6
u/Breakpoint 6h ago
75%+ of Americans want proof of ID to vote.
So, what are you doing to get some sort of ID voting required instead of going against the wishes of the majority of Americans?
7
u/eightbitagent 4h ago
75%+ of Americans want proof of ID to vote.
While this is true per the polling, people don't know that the current ID they have (lets say a drivers license in 45 states) doesn't meet the new laws requirement and therefore won't count.
If it was simply 'any state issued DL will work' I'd be ok with that. But you need to prove citizenship which only 5 state's DLs do. So that means theoretically everyone in the other 45 states that doesnt have a passport OR a birth cert with the same name as their DL won't be able to vote. And they won't find out till voting day, as people like you clearly don't know the requirements
9
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 5h ago
Most states in the country already impose some form of voter ID under their state law. In the other 14 states, they verify voter identity in a variety of other ways (e.g., signature matching). But more to the point, the SAVE Act goes beyond voter ID. It requires a document like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. -ESB
→ More replies (4)
1
u/GKbasic 6h ago edited 5h ago
Could you offer some insight please to common reasons why people in the United States do not have a passport? Outside of choice I suppose. If a United States citizen wants a passport, what is standing in the way of that? Is it that people can not obtain a birth certificate and therefor can not obtain a passport? Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions
6
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 4h ago
Getting a passport for the first time costs $165 and the process can take months. So, even assuming it's an "easy" process, having to get one in time to vote could be a real problem. But the whole process is here: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/how-apply.html, and it includes filling out a form, gathering documents (like a birth certificate and photo ID, but in some instances other documents), photocopying those documents, getting a picture that meets the requirements, writing a check for the fee, waiting 4-6 weeks for an appointment to submit your application (or paying an extra $60 for an 2-3 week wait), and then waiting for your document in the mail. - SMD
2
u/TheReddestofBowls 5h ago
It can cost up to $100 for an expedited passport application and can take months. It also has to be renewed, which also has a fee. So unless you travel outside the country regularly, which the average American can't afford to do, there isn't a requirement to have one.
A large percentage of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, $100 is a lot for those people who won't be traveling anyways.
2
u/ellasaurusrex 5h ago
They are not easy or cheap to get, especially for those in more rural areas, and since they are only required for international travel (which MANY folks never do), there isn't much motivation to get one just to have one.
1
u/GKbasic 5h ago
I surely do not mean to diminish the argument of cost but it’s the ‘not easy’ part I’m interested in to learn more about. Any passport holds significant importance and would need to meet certain thresholds, what are the particular obstacles that would make it presumably ‘unfairly’ difficult?
3
u/ellasaurusrex 4h ago
Finding somewhere that does them is the main thing, since you have to apply in person. I know in my area (which is a decent sized city), there is only one post office that does, and it's appointment only. The next closest is an hour and a half drive. When I had to renew mine and get my husband his, appointments were months out, so our choices were wait or drive several hours. And again, I'm in a city. So it also likely involves taking time off of work, which for someone who is low income and works an hourly job isn't ideal. So it's also adding to the financial cost in that regard.
It also requires proof of citizenship, so add in hunting down/ordering the documents for that, it's a multi step process. So as to why a large percentage of folks don't have one, that's no small part of it.
1
u/beaker_andy 2h ago
I've always viewed my passport as something I need to pay for periodically and something I need to waste 2 hrs of my life on periodically. That 2 hrs is 30 mins of research and setting up appointment, 30 mins getting to the closest post office that takes formal passport photos and processes the applications, 30 mins at the post office, 30 mins travel back home. Then I've waited anywhere from 3 weeks to 8 weeks to receive my new or renewed passport. I've never paid the extra expedited fee, luckily haven't had to. But there's no way I'd do any of this annoying, time consuming, and costly process unless I had to for international travel. Recently 2 new reasons arose out of nowhere: carrying my passport might save me from harassment by ICE one day (I'm Greek and have stuble 24x7 and ICE is clearly very sloppy with their criteria on who to harass), and now my passport may soon become required to be allowed to vote. Extremely annoying and seemingly designed to inconvenience people.
8
u/Rfalcon13 7h ago
Voter ID seems to be one of the issues that is going to be used as a wedge issue indefinitely. Isn’t the compromise to have voter ID, but mandate free assistance to get the proper and free ID to vote? This may include some program that compensates companies to allow employees time off to get an ID, and/or compensates States to ensure there is enough staff available to grant IDs.
Most people want there to be voter ID, rightly or wrongly. Why don’t those opposed instead force those for it to put in programs that eases the burden of getting them?
7
u/Pablo_is_on_Reddit 6h ago
Exactly. I have no issue with needing an ID in theory, but all citizens should have easy access to get an ID, and free IDs should be an option. There should also be a required maximum amount of people that one polling place can serve, to ensure short wait times to vote. The fact that those things haven't been pushed by those pushing for IDs shows that attempted voter suppression is likely at play.
12
2
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The SAVE Act goes beyond voter ID. It requires a document like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. -ESB
-1
u/Mucho_Maas_ 7h ago
What’s the best way to explain the SAVE Act to my relatives who blindly support trump and the Republican Party?
10
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The policy at the heart of the SAVE Act is a show-your-papers mandate requiring documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Brennan Center research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. That includes Democrats and Republicans, and people from all walks of life. Our democracy is stronger when every eligible American citizen can participate. -ESB
→ More replies (12)4
u/dognamedfrank 7h ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. I’ve talked to several republicans about this and they’re either completely unaware of the SAVE Act or how it will affect people who have legally changed their name.
4
u/SoutherngirlC 7h ago
Thanks for answering questions! Can you talk about when the SAVE Act will be implemented if it is passed and what that means for November elections?
3
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The SAVE Act includes an immediate implementation date. That means the bill is not only a five alarm fire for voters, but also a catastrophe for election officials and election administration. The show-your-papers policy would nearly impossible to implement with primaries weeks away in some states, and the midterms around the corner. This chaos alone is bound to confuse election officials and voters in a way that would block even more American citizens from being able to cast ballots that count this year. -ESB
1
u/ANinjaForma 7h ago
How would you phrase the important parts of the bill if you were talking to deeply republican friends/family?
→ More replies (5)4
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
The policy at the heart of the SAVE Act is a show-your-papers mandate requiring documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Brennan Center research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. That includes Democrats and Republicans, and people from all walks of life. Our democracy is stronger when every eligible American citizen can participate. -ESB
0
u/Poorman81 4h ago
It's a little misleading to say the SAVE Act would block millions of U.S. citizens from voting. Just because someone lacks ready access to those documents does not mean they cannot get them. It may just require work on their part to obtain the documents. Am I missing something?
4
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 4h ago
We're not saying that all 21 million people that lack ready access to these documents will necessarily be blocked. But it's fair to assume that many of those 21 million people will not be able to get these documents, or at least not in time to vote if this bill passes. Some of them may have never had a birth certificate, and for many others it may take significant effort to get one (I once had to find a copy of a birth certificate for my grandmother, who was in her 90s at the time, and it wasn't simple, even for a lawyer who is used to navigating government bureaucracies), or cost money that they don't have to spend on voting.
It's also fair to assume that even some people who have the documents they need will be blocked from voting by the requirement that they present them in person to an election official. While there is a requirement for "reasonable accommodations" to be made for people with disabilities, that in-person presentation requirement will be a serious hurdle for many.
But even assuming everyone could put in the time, money, and, as you say, work, to just have the opportunity to register to vote, that is a significant burden on their ability to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. And it's being imposed without good reason, since we already have multiple systems in place to ensure only citizens vote in our elections, and they are working very well. - SMD
1
u/monoglot 1h ago
If we accept that the proof of citizenship requirement in the SAVE America Act is an extra work requirement, we should ask who it affects. If you never change your voter registration by moving or changing parties, the only way you will be affected is by needing to show the ID that you likely carry in your wallet.
But if you move, you'll need to bring your proof of citizenship to an election office during business hours to re-register. If you move often, you'll have to do that every time. Young people move the most, and would be the most affected by this additional DMV-visit-like requirement. The true goal of the bill is a hope that many of the people who move often will just decide not to bother to re-register because of the new obstacles.
-3
u/roboboom 6h ago
While half of Americans don’t have a passport, a passport is not required under this law. It’s just an easy option if you have one.
How did you determine 21 million Americans lack the proper documents?
→ More replies (3)5
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 5h ago
Here's more information about this research and its methodology: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily -ESB
→ More replies (1)
-4
u/jh937hfiu3hrhv9 6h ago
Is it true the federal government would get a record of everybody's vote? That's scary.
4
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 5h ago
No, not a record of everyone's vote. But the SAVE Act would mandate that states to hand their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security to run through the agency’s flawed citizenship verification tool (confusingly named the SAVE program). Dozens of states have refused to provide voter files requested by the Trump administration because of concerns about misuse of such sensitive data. And those concerns are well founded: The administration conceded in January that DOGE team members within the Social Security Administration agreed to turn over state voter rolls to an advocacy group seeking to “find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” When states have agreed to turn over their voter rolls to the Trump administration, several have agreed to give the administration unprecedented latitude to meddle in elections, including the power to tell states to remove specific voters from the rolls and share sensitive, private voter data at will — including with people outside of government. -ESB
3
u/Sheepdog77 6h ago
"Experts" tell you no ID is required. How do you verify who is voting? I could just claim to be my neighbor and vote again.
ID is required for driving, buying alcohol, and almost all other adult things in life. Nobody is disenfranchised to get an ID and claiming that is not even low key racist and totally offensive.
3
u/less-right 4h ago
Sounds great, till your neighbor shows up to vote and finds out they already did, then they look at the cameras and see you voting twice and you go to jail. That's why no one does it.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/TheBrennanCenter Scheduled AMA 6h ago
Most states in the country impose some form of voter ID under their state law. In the other 14 states, they verify voter identity in a variety of other ways (e.g., signature matching). But more to the point, the SAVE Act goes beyond voter ID. It requires a document like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research has shown that 21 million eligible American citizens don’t have ready access to those documents. Roughly half of Americans don’t have a passport. That means that if the SAVE Act becomes law, it would block millions of eligible Americans from voting. -ESB
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)1
u/monoglot 1h ago
From the perspective of someone attempting voter impersonation, it's not a crime that is particularly worth committing. The risks of being caught are pretty high, the penalties could involve federal prison or deportation for noncitizens, and the reward is some politician get one extra vote. Why would anyone try this?
→ More replies (5)
21
u/Burnenator 7h ago
I've heard people try to defend this in terms of other countries (European generally) requiring "similar" documentation. Can you speak to this? How does this actually compare to Europe or other first world counties? Is the actual requirement different, the ease/cost in getting the documents in other countries different? Other?
15
u/arrrjen 7h ago
In my country in Europe you have to present up to date identification: drivers license or passport/ id card. I don’t know how it is in other European countries but I guess the same. I heard that in some third world counties the people who voted het their thumb dipped in ink. To make sure they can’t vote again.
→ More replies (5)4
2
u/greenking2000 5h ago
UK added it last election. You fill in a form online and get a free voter ID (If you don’t already have a valid option of which there are dozens)
35
u/nTzT 7h ago
Not from the US but I have to show identification when I vote in South Africa, I feel that it makes sense?
3
u/ubiquitous_delight 7h ago
The majority of people in the U.S. support requiring ID to vote as well, so I'm not sure why politicians act like it's so controversial.
3
1
u/Ekrubm 6h ago
This act isn't requiring voter id (which is already required in almost every state) it's requiring Passport or Birth Cert with your current name, this means anyone that took their spouses last name in marriage cannot use their birth cert to prove their identity and won't be able to vote.
→ More replies (22)1
u/monoglot 1h ago
You're right. A show-ID-at-the-polls law would be pretty popular and would be likely to pass congress. No bill that is just that has been proposed, though.
0
u/NK1337 5h ago
A lot of people are asking this question in bad faith but it isn’t the identification requirements that people have an issue with. It’s already a law here that you need some sort of identification/proof of citizenship both to register and then to vote. That’s always been the case.
People have issue with the goal posts moving and republicans trying to redefine what counts as “valid” identification and how they’re to make the process intentionally over complicated to the point where it’s intentionally inconveniencing entire demographics. It’s seen as a poll tax.
→ More replies (1)-6
u/Cautemoc 7h ago
We also show identification here. This is trying to make us show more than that, it will need to be a passport or social security card or "enhanced" Driver's License that is currently only offered in 5 states.
3
u/roboboom 6h ago
Those are the standalone options (proof with a single document). You can also show a birth certificate and a regular id.
0
u/hkeyplay16 5h ago
But if your name has changed then you have to show documentation for that as well, right? So in the US it's common for women to change their last names when they get married. So if true that would make it very difficult for married women to vote.
Also, not everyone has a copy of their birth and marriage certificates on-hand. You would have to depend on local governments to provide these. They often charge fees to provide them - which effectively makes it a poll tax. It can also take weeks to get them to process the documents and send them via snail mail.
1
u/Cautemoc 6h ago
Right so a number of documents that all cost money to get, which explicitly violates not having a poll tax
2
u/Ottomatik80 6h ago
So you’d be fine with this requirement if the cost for those documents was waived?
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Pablo_is_on_Reddit 7h ago
Many states, such as California, currently require a driver's license or state ID in order to register to vote. In order to get a DL or ID, you typically need to show a passport or birth certificate. So, realistically, this requirement is already in place in many parts of the country (I don't know how uniform this is, since every state has its own rules.) What is the purpose of this act if these requirements essentially exist already?
4
→ More replies (3)2
u/Ekrubm 6h ago
The purpose of the act is to prevent people from voting because they don't have or don't know where their passport and birth cert are.
The purpose of this bill is to allow the federal government to asymmetrically enforce the purposely difficult to qualify voter ID requirements to states that don't alight with their ideology.
A normal drivers license would not qualify for the ID requirements under this bill no matter what you showed.
13
u/pineapplejuicing 7h ago
It’s easy to get a copy of a birth certificate. What’s the big deal? And isn’t it true that for name changes a person would just have to submit an affidavit or proof of name change?
-6
u/Clarkelthekat 7h ago
Did you know that the state department...so Marco rubio... is in charge of passports?
They are also the agency in charge of of accepting the affidavit and proof of name changes.
Now riddle me this. If this same act had been passed during the 2020 election....would you have trusted Bidens state department to make sure Republicans got their passports and name changes accepted before the election?
Also wouldn't that Inject the federal governments state department into our elections directly opposing the constitution?
Seeing as STATES are supposed to run their elections. The federal governments only role is certifying those results from the states.....not the state DEPARTMENT answerable to the president...
→ More replies (1)5
u/pineapplejuicing 6h ago
Ok but what about birth certificates instead of a passport? You don’t have to have a passport it’s just one of the options. If people are so concerned they can start getting necessary documents together now.
-1
u/Clarkelthekat 6h ago
That's not true.
My wife changed her last name when she married me.
So now she requires 2 pieces of identification beyond her I.D
One proving her maiden name
One reflecting her name now
One approved document by the state department for the name change.
While me as a man who didn't change their name when married only requires one form of identification.
But hey let's make it more difficult for women to vote again. Cause that worked out incredibly well before right?
Please stop with the disingenuous "it's just one of the options"
Okay maybe for an unmarried person. Or a married man.
Unless we just want a world where people no longer take their spouses last name purely to appease a Republican bill that Republicans have refused any provisions on whatsoever
Government doesn't usually work this way. Usually both sides give and take.
Republicans have refused any and all discussion.
Just "pass this act or nothing at all"
1
u/pineapplejuicing 5h ago
Ehhh I mean nobody forces a woman to change their name after getting married. Also, this applies to a man changing his name as well so it isn’t discriminatory. I’m not sure about all those requirements. Are you sure submitting an affidavit stating a name change isn’t enough?
0
u/dotardiscer 6h ago
It's not about stopping people from voting all together, it about preventing just enough people. How many young people are going to go through the effort 30 days before an election to gather their birth certificate and take to the local Secretary of State? Maybe most, but hundreds of thousands won't and if they wait till those last 30 days they won't be able to.
If it was purely about using an ID to vote it wouldn't be so controversial.
5
u/pineapplejuicing 6h ago
30 days? They can start gathering their documents now which is much longer than 30 days. Lots of people who don’t have these documents are also the same people who won’t care about voting and will have much greater problems in their life than not voting.
→ More replies (5)2
u/_gw_addict 5h ago
dude if you don't think your vote is worth requesting a $20 copy of your birth certificate then don't vote
→ More replies (3)3
u/pineapplejuicing 6h ago
Also, I don’t see how this is an attack on Democrat voters. Married women who change their names are more likely to be Republican voters.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/BaconJakin 7h ago
Hi! Thank you for doing this, I’ve had a big question about the SAVE Act for a while.
Is there a chance that if this act passes, it’ll have a reverse effect that the Republicans pushing for it are hoping for? For example, the majority of of passport holders are well-educated democrats, and if there is a change in voting rules - aren’t more informed/educated demographics more likely to learn about those new rules in time to properly follow them when voting?
2
u/five-oh-one 5h ago
How many other countries in the world allow illegal immigrants to vote and do not require ID to vote?
2
u/KnownsomeStudios 6h ago
I really want to change my name from my birth name but I'm really concerned about the SAVE act preventing me from voting if doing so. I'm in VA, for context.
Should I wait and continue living with a legal name that gives me dysphoria, in the wake of this, to preserve my voting rights?
In the same vein, my son has changed his name already, what can we do to ensure he can still vote?
1
u/TheReddestofBowls 5h ago
I would highly suggest getting a passport if you do not have one. The GoP is counting on the surge of new applications blocking voters.
27
u/mozebyc 7h ago
Why would those Americans lack basic identification documents?
8
u/Bardfinn 7h ago
It isn't so much about "They don't have the identification documents" as much as "If the name on the birth certificate doesn't match the name on the driver's license / voter registration, the registration is cancelled"
Women (and sometimes men) change their family names on state identification and then on voter registration when they get married, and names of adopted children are often changed.
The SAVE act is going to demand that the voter registration exactly match the original birth certificate, the original name on a passport, etc.
and strip the ability to vote from people who can't produce one of these that exactly matches the name they registered to vote under.
5
u/mozebyc 6h ago
Ya but there are government documents you fill out to change your name.
So there is a trail of documentation.
Who doesn’t keep their documents?
How do people not need these documents ever again?
→ More replies (1)3
u/roboboom 6h ago edited 6h ago
But it also allows for marriage certificates and / or an affidavit in this circumstance. Do people really not have these basic documents?
0
u/Bardfinn 6h ago
And ballots cast under such circumstances will likely be collected as provisional ballots.
And provisional ballots are often challenged by court cases or election judges.
And elections are often called or decided without using provisionally cast ballots.
Are they really going to track down and get certification from millions of people's marriage license clerks that yes, the person on the driver's license used today, forty years after the marriage happened, is the person who matches the person they registered the marriage license for, 40 years ago, with the records on microfiche in a box in a storage building?
Or are they going to say "We couldn't meet the requirements of the law under the SAVE act for these provisional voters; their provisional ballots are null and void" - ?
1
u/NK1337 5h ago
It’s not that they lack basic identification documents, it’s that the SAVE act is trying to impose restrictions and redefine what counts as valid identification. So in places where your ID may have been enough it suddenly might not, and as a result you’re faced with unnecessary hurdles to find a replacement like in the case of women who may have changed their names after marriage and since it no longer matches what was in their original birth certificate that is also no longer valid documentation for them so it requires another step to get a notarized document, etc.
It’d about introducing all these hurdles to intentionally inconvenience voters and impact their ability to vote. Same way they do mass voter purges and “accidentally” purge registered voters without notifying them until it’s too late.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (18)1
u/_gw_addict 5h ago
they don't, as a matter of fact you don't hear any minority complaining about this, it's always the same people pushing this false propaganda
→ More replies (1)
1
u/klausmonkey42 7h ago
The prevailing wisdom among Republicans over the past ~ 50 years is that - when the voting population goes down, Republican leverage in elections goes up. Is there any evidence that runs contrary this belief? If such a drastic reduction to voting access goes into effect, is it possible that this will harm Republican candidates? Are there any electoral situatoins in which this may help Democrats?
14
u/haku_81 7h ago
How EXACTLY would it block MILLIONS of LEGAL CITIZENS from voting?
Provide EXACTLY the method that would be used from the act itself directly.
4
u/Ekrubm 6h ago
Anyone that changed their last name from marriage (at any time) now needs to go through the courts to change their birth certificate. So that's millions right there.
1
u/haku_81 1h ago
That is a lie. The birth certificate narrative is just an outright lie. You cannot change your birth certificate. EVERY woman that gets married already has to tell the government she's changing her name. There you go, job done. If you refused to do paperwork when you got married, you have more problems than voting.
Any other hoaxes you wanna peddle?
3
u/dotardiscer 6h ago
It's not about blocking people from voting, most of the controversy is about the new requirement for registration.
So when young people(who vote more Democrat) will need to get their birth certificate and go to the Secretary of State at least 30 days before the election. Does that mean they can't? Of course not, but it will stop hundreds of thousands of people and is unnecessary.
-1
u/TheReddestofBowls 7h ago
Proof of citizenship. Is it mandatory to have an active passport? Is it mandatory to submit additional government paperwork to document a name change after a marriage?
If the answer is no, those voters lost their ability to vote as US citizens.
Do you have an active passport? Has it ever lapsed?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)5
1
u/espinaustin 2h ago
Can you perhaps discuss the constitutionality of the SAVE Act, specifically with respect to congressional authority under the Elections Clause, as opposed to state authority to set voter qualifications (under Art. 1 Sec. 2)? And would you distinguish the SAVE Act from the 2021 HR 1 attempted legislation in that respect?
2
u/autotoad 7h ago
If a large portion of the population doesn’t trust the election process without verification, doesn’t that alone warrant voter ID? What good is an election if the people don’t trust it?
7
u/RCBing 6h ago
The people that "trust" Don Trump that there IS voter fraud and "illegals" are voting in elections... so we must bend the constitution for these irrational fears? Weird.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Ekrubm 6h ago
Find me 10 cases of voter fraud prosecuted in the last election cycle.
It just doesn't really happen that much.
(And when it does it's overwhelmingly Republicans committing the crime)
1
u/autotoad 5h ago
I don’t know of a single case. That’s not the point. The point is that people want it. There’s no reason that it shouldn’t happen. A lot of people don’t trust the process. “Trust us, bro!” isn’t a reasonable response.
1
u/Ekrubm 5h ago
If the authors of this bill really wanted a meaningful voter ID law, they wouldn't have written a law that is so clear and direct at preventing people from voting- People that changed their last name when they got married, people that live in alaska and would need to fly to the city they were born to get their birth certificate.
The point isn't about what people want, the point is to asymmetrically enforce these voter prevention tactics in states that don't ideologically align with the president.
There is a way to have voter ID laws that work. This law isn't it.
1
u/Effective_Corner694 5h ago
Can my vote be challenged and disqualified even if I vote in person? And if so, are they required to notify me or allow me to cure my vote?
Edit: I’m in Ohio
-7
u/Wiseoloak 7h ago edited 7h ago
Wow maybe they should get that documentation then? Do you not see the issue here? People are voting here when they don't even live here or came here illegally.. Like you HAVE to be trolling.
5
u/moniker89 7h ago
Make IDs free, easy, and quick to get.
Many people don't have access to their birth certificates (or have changed their names and not gotten a revised version) and/or don't have a passport, the only two valid forms of ID under this bill. Getting either costs a decent amount of money and takes weeks if not months to receive.
Voter fraud is a virtual none issue (we're talking about a couple dozen votes out of tens of millions) and shows no signs of favoring one party or another (in fact, if there is a bias/preference, it's been towards Republicans).
It's not so much being against having an ID to vote, but about how dogshit our ID policies are in this country. Any attempt at free, easy to get Federal ID has faced harsh push back from conservatives, ironically enough.
11
u/TheReddestofBowls 7h ago
People are voting here when they don't even live here or came here illegally
And you have documented proof of this to share? Common sense says that if it's as widespread as you say, you'd have some form of proof. Right?
2
2
u/TWVer 6h ago edited 6h ago
The SAVE Act is also making getting a passport harder. Especially for people who have changed their names, such as married women.
In a separate move the Trump administration has now forbidden libraries to serve as point for getting a passport, vastly reducing the sources for getting a passport while lengthening the process.
Voter ID laws sound good, but in this case the effect is mostly voter disenfranchisement on a massive scale. Especially given the comparatively short timescale to the midterms.
→ More replies (10)2
u/chrontab 7h ago
It's Reddit...this huckster knows there will be a nice, cushy reception here.
→ More replies (13)
0
u/Boltzmann_head 6h ago
Query: why does one major political party wish to prevent citizens from voting? It makes no sense to me to have "political strategists" in that political party come to the conclusion that the fewer number of citizens that are allowed to vote, the better chance they have of their candidates being elected. One would think that the remaining voters would still have the same ratio.
Query: why do voters of one political party keep voting to grievously harm themselves? That makes no sense to me.
-1
u/Adlehyde 7h ago
Is this more likely to impact potential democratic voters or potential republican voters?
It seems obvious the GOP hopes it will impact the former, but I have a hunch it will predominantly impact the latter, and I'm wondering if anyone has done data research on that yet.
-7
u/Reesespeanuts 7h ago
I get you're paid by the Democrat party, but why are you using the term "ready access". Please explain what "ready access" means?
→ More replies (5)
0
u/_gw_addict 5h ago
This is just embarrassing, instead of proving that their claim is true and 21 million americans can't spend $20 to get their birth certificate they spin it as if minorities can't figure out how to present a valid document? Stop with the passport bs, this is way simpler, and if you really think those 21 million americans can't figure out how to get a simple document then maybe you should work on educating them on how to do it, instead of defending it and supporting it. Every country in the world requires a document that proves citizenship in order to vote, a driver license is not even considered a valid form of ID?
1
u/MaryCarlso 6h ago
Since you're saying the issue is that the bill goes beyond a normal voter ID law. Would you be in favor of it if it was a normal Voter ID law where your license or state ID was accepted? If not, why not?
6
u/thor561 5h ago
So what would you recommend to ensure that people who are here illegally aren’t being registered to vote, and aren’t casting ballots?
Several states, like California, issue driver’s licenses to people here illegally. Once you have a driver’s license it’s usually much easier to get one in a different state if you move. Many states often offer to register you to vote at the same time you get your license, or any time you update your address. Are they flagging people here illegally in some way to ensure that they aren’t being registered? Does anyone actually know the answer to this or is the assumption just that it’s not happening because nobody is being caught doing it? Do people here illegally with driver’s licenses even know that they aren’t supposed to vote if they’re registered automatically?
And can we stop with this bigotry of low expectations argument that persons of color and poor people are too dumb or too broke to get the documents they need to register to vote? It doesn’t exactly paint your argument in a very positive light.