First things first, I don’t doubt it is a bad thing, considering who supports it and who doesn’t.
But my question is what exactly is the issue and what is the current and proposed voting process when it comes to IDs?
Here in my EU country, you have to show some version of a government ID, be it an ID card, drivers license or passport. And we don’t have to pre-register to vote.
Before you can vote, you have to “register” to vote. When you do this, you need to prove you’re a U.S. citizen. Usually providing a birth certificate, or passport, military id, idk everything.
My understanding was that the name you were registering to vote with had to match the document you were using. But if you got married then often times the women would have a different last name and now it doesn’t match your birth certificate. Normally you’d just have to prove you got married too but this new law would say no, you have to have the exact name or you can’t vote.
Since women typically take the man’s last name, it would effectively mean any married women registering to vote would not be allowed. And since the bill is worded confusingly on purpose, many women would not even realize this until they went to register to vote, and told they couldn’t because of their new last name.
It’s not effectively any woman, it’s a women who is using their birth certificate for ID. Which is effectively 1/3 of the options so it’s significant but not “effectively mean any married woman can’t vote.”
They can use a passport, state issued ID such as Drivers license or ID card or a birth certificate. The new drivers licenses and IDs that are “real IDs” which is required now are also proof of citizenship.
That’s fair, I should’ve been more exact with my words. If someone is poor and living in a large metro area they might not even have a drivers license so birth certificate would be their best option. And large metro areas typically swing democrat so it would disproportionately hurts dems more than cons.
Not an llm but wanted to acknowledge good criticism.
It’s a whole can of worms. For the golden standards of what counts as an ID, getting a State ID, Driver’s License, or Passport can be hard. My first time getting a passport was an over 6 month long journey and was hell, getting my Driver’s License was a long journey and cost me like $30, and then what counts as a good form of ID?
Back when I lived in Texas, my license for Concealed Carry worked as a valid form of ID but my Student ID when I was attending Uni there wasn’t. So why is a CCL a valid form of ID but a student ID isn’t?
My opposition to Voter ID is because of this, it would be handled on a state level and not the federal level. This would disenfranchise a lot of people who might not be able to get a valid form of ID.
DMVs are slow and in many areas hard to get to. I know people who live like 100 miles away from any and that is where you get your either State ID or Driver’s License. How are they supposed to prove who they are?
I would support a Voter ID law if and only if we had a free and easily accesible way to get a form of identification.
paspport you have to make appt which can be weeks or months out to schedule your picture, and the process too and only at specific USPS offices. and apparently red states never worried about having to get passports/birth certificates, because theier voting is not disenfranchised there. when the republicans reccommended last year, they freaked out as red areas are unlikely to have post offices that afford passport services.
Not a single thing you say changes my opinion.
The problem is primarily that it falsely validates a fascist conspiracy theory which is being weaponized to dismantle western democracy. That’s really most of it.
If it validates a conspiracy theory then has it not proven the conspiracy theory to be more likly. When one is doing science and one discovered evidence that supports a conclusion you cannot dismiss the evidence or change you methodology to avoid the evidence simply because you don’t like what the evidence implies. Follow the science mate don’t change ur methodology cos the science disagrees with ur preconceived notions.
Voter fraud is incredibly rare in the US. The conspiracy theory is that elections are horrifically insecure and the result of every vote is fraudulent.
The proposed voter id laws take that as an inroad to erode the right to vote for all citizens.
How can u know its rare worhout checking id? I’m not a us citizen whats stopping me from walking into a polling booth and voting? It seems pretty insecure to me. One cannot simply assert an assumption and proclaim it to be true.
We don’t have a free national ID, even state IDs cost money. There should be no money involved in the right to vote.
Every single state with voter id requirements either gives free voter id cards or waives fees on existing id forms if u state if for the purposes of voting.
Interestingly I come from a nation where voting is not a right but a duty. Yes in Australia you get fined if you don’t vote. U can purposely spoil ur ballot that’s fine and that goes in the statistics but u still need to show up and purposely do that.
Canada. No free national ID card. About $15 a year, renewed every 5 years. Your health ID and driver ID can be separate or same-card, and can be used to fulfill “government-issued picture ID” required to vote; otherwise it’s a passport, probably, which is a little more.
Who are the US modeling themselves after when they demand a free ID card before it is required to verify identity for voting?
First thing is that it is up to states to administer elections and make their own rules and laws. Given the record of the current president, many people and states are not very interested in giving up power over that to the federal government, who keeps trying to claim and take control of state-run elections anyway.
In the US, people are not automatically given IDs or driver licenses. They require a fair amount of time, other paperwork, and fees to procure. Therefore having one is automatically more likely for people with more time (retired, better job, etc), money, organized lives and physical ability since you must show up in person.
By organized lives, I mean people of higher economic status are more likely to live in stable situations where they have social security cards, passports and birth certificates easily accessible. If you don’t have those documents - perhaps they were lost in a move, never given by parents, never applied for - it costs a fair bit to get them. A replacement SS card is free. A duplicate birth certificate can be $20-30. The average charge for an ID/DL is about $40. A copy of a marriage or divorce certificate is typically $10-40. A replacing naturalization certificate is almost $1,400.
Getting these documents could take weeks and an amount of money that’s trivial to higher income people and significant to lower income people. Like voting, if you have a white collar job, it’s fairly easy to take time out to do it. If you have an hourly job with little flexibility and/or lack a vehicle, it’s much more difficult to go to government offices to obtain this paperwork. Some might ask, why would someone not have at least a driver’s license or ID? Perhaps it expired, was lost, they moved and never got the paperwork, or couldn’t afford the fees and time. Younger people and non-white people are known to be less likely to have the documents that would be required. It also creates barriers for armed service members.
Another aspect is the bill says women must prove their citizenship with documents that match their original, non-married name. So if you have a birth certificate that says Jane Doe but all your other documents say Jane Smith, since it was changed after marriage, that won’t work. The requirements would also make it harder for trans people to register.
Next, there’s the changes to registration process. Currently 42 states allow you to register online or by mail. That would be nixed. Voters would have to show up at an office in person to register. Currently signing under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen is considered adequate, along with proof of residency and documents like an ID (which required the aforementioned birth certificate etc to get in the first place). Under the proposed law, a drivers license would not be adequate in 90% of states. In some areas, voters must travel over 200 miles to get to an election office in person.
Another question is why this would be necessary. While Republicans have been claiming that non-citizens voting in federal elections is a major problem, there is no actual evidence of that. In fact, data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says 0.04% of voters might be ineligible, and that’s considered likely an overcount. When states have tried similar laws in the past, it ended up disenfranchising far, far more legitimate voters than the number of illegitimate voters thwarted.
So what’s the actual effect of this? Mainly, to make it harder for poor people and women to vote, two groups who are more likely to vote for Democrats.
Thank you for the very trhourough explanation. That’s all fucking distopian.
I can imagine the issue with lack of easy access to government IDs also has other consequences for lower income people.





