Senate democrats stand in unity against voter integrity that just about the entire country (including democrat voters) wants.

The obvious question is why?

Because they are cads, liars, four flushing lowdown cheats ….

Tampa Bay Times

That is race mongering. Read what Sen Fetterman said about that.

The same white conservative bigots are crafting laws based on what they know about minority communities that they want to keep from voting just like they did after the civil war. They knew black Americans had low literacy (because they'd banned them from learning to read previously) so they started literacy tests to be able to vote. Now those white conservatives' descendants craft laws based on what they know about minority communities that they want to keep from voting by requiring ID that they're less likely to have or to ban Sunday voting which is the most likely day for black communities to get out the vote campaigns after Church. This is intentional disenfranchisement, and it's not a mystery that those same bigots who used to say "If they can't read, they don't get to vote!" are saying "If they can't be responsible enough and pay off their parking tickets to get a certain type of ID, they don't get to vote!". Fucking disgusting dishonest rightwing conservatives.

The same white conservative bigots are crafting laws based on what they know about minority communities that they want to keep from voting just like they did after the civil war. They knew black Americans had low literacy (because they'd banned them from learning to read previously) so they started literacy tests to be able to vote. Now those white conservatives' descendants craft laws based on what they know about minority communities that they want to keep from voting by requiring ID that they're less likely to have or to ban Sunday voting which is the most likely day for black communities to get out the vote campaigns after Church. This is intentional disenfranchisement, and it's not a mystery that those same bigots who used to say "If they can't read, they don't get to vote!" are saying "If they can't be responsible enough and pay off their parking tickets to get a certain type of ID, they don't get to vote!". Fucking disgusting dishonest rightwing conservatives.

So, you agree that minority voters are incapable of getting an ID to vote?  That's the only way this 'racist' screed works.  The only way a requirement for an ID to vote becomes odious is because the voters are too stupid, lazy, or helpless to get an ID.

The real problem is that the parties are constantly moving the map.  A voter can be shifted to different precincts and districts by the parties redrawing the maps.  The partisan shifts in the map has invalidated their original registration.  The voter rolls are unreliable because of gerrymandering.  Should that voter be required to register every time the map is redrawn?

Since gerrymandering has made voter rolls an unreliable means of validating and certifying a voter's ballot then how can that be fixed?  That's where the idea of requiring a state issued ID comes into play.  

So, you agree that minority voters are incapable of getting an ID to vote?

No, I have never and would never make that claim. What I do know is that 22% of eligible black voters do not have the ID that Republicans are demanding. It's not that I think they're 'incapable', I think forcing them to get an ID is unnecessary UNLESS the sniveling dishonest bigots can PROVE there is widespread voter fraud. That would be the only reason to demand specific forms of ID to vote.

Why do 22% of black Americans not have the proper ID when only 8% of white Americans don't? It's likely to do with the levels of poverty and the long history of racism that has left a legacy of distrust of the government which is perfectly understandable. Should that mean they should lose their vote and their voice? FUCK NO! And fuck anyone who thinks it should right in the fucking ear.

It's not that I think they're 'incapable', I think forcing them to get an ID is unnecessary UNLESS the sniveling dishonest bigots can PROVE there is widespread voter fraud.

It's not too difficult to prove that a large number of voters are voting in precincts and districts where they did not register to vote.  The voters didn't move.  The partisan asswipes changed the map which invalidated the voter registrations.  

The whole argument is to cover the asses of politicians and dump the burden onto voters.  If someone registered to vote in the 1st district but Democrats gamed the map so the voter is now in the 3rd district, then voting without updating the registration is fraudulent.  There's no way to honestly certify votes if registrations are not updated every time the parties change the maps.

Why do 22% of black Americans not have the proper ID when only 8% of white Americans don't?

Outstanding warrants?  Mental illness?  Sovereign citizens?  What else could explain 22% of the adult Black population being incapable of driving a motor vehicle?  The inability to drive severely limits economic opportunity.  

The inability to drive severely limits economic opportunity.  

Still not a reason to take away their right to vote.

then voting without updating the registration is fraudulent.  There's no way to honestly certify votes if registrations are not updated every time the parties change the maps.

So, it's not about illegals voting, it's about who's registered where and we have to make sure you live there to vote so we can just disenfranchise college voters, homeless veterans, people who got married and their ID doesn't match their voter registrations, the elderly who didn't realize their district had just been changed and they have to re-register, why do Republicans want to make it SO fucking hard to vote? Of course, the answer is, if they don't, they know they'll lose. It's as simple as that. They're counting on making voting so difficult that some Americans don't bother, it's what they're counting on because they know most Americans are not rightwing conservatives.

They're counting on making voting so difficult that some Americans don't bother, it's what they're counting on because they know most Americans are not rightwing conservatives.

Even so, I bet all this madness impacts conservatives more than liberals. 

Still not a reason to take away their right to vote.

Why not?  Without a state issued photo ID an individual cannot legally buy tobacco or alcohol, buy restricted pharmaceuticals, apply for credit, fly domestically, obtain safety net benefits, find housing, and are severely restricted in the jobs that are open to them.  For these individuals it would seem voting should be the least of their worries.

So, it's not about illegals voting, it's about who's registered where and we have to make sure you live there to vote so we can just disenfranchise college voters, homeless veterans, people who got married and their ID doesn't match their voter registrations, the elderly who didn't realize their district had just been changed and they have to re-register, why do Republicans want to make it SO fucking hard to vote? Of course, the answer is, if they don't, they know they'll lose. It's as simple as that. They're counting on making voting so difficult that some Americans don't bother, it's what they're counting on because they know most Americans are not rightwing conservatives.

I am suggesting it is about fraudulent voting.  It is also about battling gerrymandering.  And Democrats are noted for playing games with the district maps based on minority voting.

Requiring an ID wouldn't make voting any harder than buying Newport Menthols or Crown Royal.  

Why not?

Because of the constitution.

Without a state issued photo ID an individual cannot legally buy tobacco or alcohol, buy restricted pharmaceuticals, apply for credit, fly domestically, obtain safety net benefits, find housing, and are severely restricted in the jobs that are open to them.

None of those things are required to be an American citizen with a right to vote.

For these individuals it would seem voting should be the least of their worries.

That's your opinion, but it bears no weight when determining whether a citizen is allowed to vote or not.

I am suggesting it is about fraudulent voting.

What evidence do you have to support your wild "suggestion"? A gut feeling? A general belief that you don't like those on the left so you think they'd do something like that? All the actual investigations have turned up next to nothing. Why do you believe there's something more even after exhaustive investigations turned up a few handfuls of fraud on both sides, but nothing that could be considered widespread or that effected any actual election?

It is also about battling gerrymandering.

Yes, it is. And I wish we could get rid of it on both sides. But you can't have just Democrats being forced to have non-partisan groups deciding the voting districts while Republicans are allowed to carve it up any way they like. Republicans started this most recent gerrymander war, so I fully support Democrats ability to retaliate.

And Democrats are noted for playing games with the district maps based on minority voting.

That is your opinion, I feel exactly the opposite and have watched Republicans push for the most wild and extreme gerrymanders that were LITERALLY called out by the courts as based on race but allowed by this insanely partisan SCOTUS majority.

Supreme Court allows Texas to use redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory

Thursday’s order, dissenting Justice Kagan said, “announces that Texas may run next year’s elections with a map the District Court found to have violated all our oft-repeated strictures about the use of race in districting. Today’s order,” she continued, “disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge—that put aside every consideration except getting the issue before it right.”

Supreme Court allows Texas to use redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory - SCOTUSblog

Requiring an ID wouldn't make voting any harder than buying Newport Menthols or Crown Royal.  

Again, those are not requirements to vote. I get that you're saying "Well, is it really so hard to ask them to do this?" which was the same many bigots used to justify poll taxes and literacy tests and other attempts to block American citizens from voting.

Check out any google of immigrant benefits in Texas, even on official Texas websites, it says over and over, and over again, that there be no such thing.

Immigrants are never eligible for government benefits in Texas.

They do go out of their way to point out that they cannot control churches and other charities that might offer aid to the poor without requiring documentation.

They even point out that a person with no documentation might get hit by a car and treated at an ER without documentation which is also legal.

So guess what the rally cry of several political candidates are from Abbott all the way down the Republican ticket?

A new law that prohibits benefits for undocumented persons. Possibly another change to the Texas Constitution.

Because you can never be a good God fearing Republican in Texas without treating immigrants like Jesus would, /S /S/S

I am suggesting it is about fraudulent voting

The rate of fraudulent voting is almost immeasurable and almost predominantly by the Party making the most noise about it.

It is also about battling gerrymandering.

BS. the SCOTUS approved Texas & California schemes to gerrymander shamelessly.

And Democrats are noted for playing games with the district maps based on minority voting.

only by uninformed Republicans.

The rate of fraudulent voting is almost immeasurable and almost predominantly by the Party making the most noise about it.

Cheaters want to avoid rules and referees.  

How do you know how much fraudulent voting is going on?  Are you relying on a corrupt party system to define fraud?  

When voters are restricted to voting in only one state sponsored primary election then the system has become far too corrupt to defend.  The parties are deliberately putting their thumbs on the scales and preventing free, open, and fair elections. 

When one or both parties oppose rules, referees, and oversight and deliberately disenfranchise unaffiliated voters then democratic elections die in darkness.  We're supposed to be making it more difficult for either or both parties to rig elections by keeping independent candidates on the sidelines.

How do you know how much fraudulent voting is going on? 

The news during and after the last two election cycles when Republicans voted for recently deceased parents or spouses.

Republican who claimed voter fraud found to have voted illegally | The Independent

Kansas Mayor Who Voted for Trump as Noncitizen Faces Felony Charges | The New Republic

How many Republicans will get caught committing voter fraud before the GOP stops pointing fingers?

The deep ironies in the GOP's war on 'voter fraud'

Non citizens only vote when the system tells them they can, in error.

WE all know we have to be citizens.

THEY all know they have to be citizens.

Most valid cases involve misunderstandings or errors about when or how soon someone can vote after parole or when voting privileges were or were not restored,

usually the government's fault or their lawyers.

When voters are restricted to voting in only one state sponsored primary election then the system has become far too corrupt to defend.  The parties are deliberately putting their thumbs on the scales and preventing free, open, and fair elections.  When one or both parties oppose rules, referees, and oversight and deliberately disenfranchise unaffiliated voters then democratic elections die in darkness. .

This has nothing to do with voter fraud or non citizens voting.  It's just bitching about the house rules.

 We're supposed to be making it more difficult for either or both parties to rig elections by keeping independent candidates on the sidelines

This is what primaries are all about.  Early voting started in Texas for the November midterms. There are dozens of republicans trying to primary Abbott plus a handful of Democrats and no Independents. Chances are, and studies have born this out, that the eventual winner would be the same with closed party primaries or one open primary.  

Opponents of the open primary argue that the open primary is   unconstitutional . These opponents believe that the open primary law violates their   freedom of association , because it forces them to allow outsiders to select their candidates. An opposing view is that political parties are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution in any language, but voting rights of the individual are clearly defined.

Freedom of association has been recognized by the   United States Supreme Court . First, in   NAACP v. Alabama , the court said that "It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the   Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment , which embraces freedom of speech." ^{[ 6 ]}

In other words, the freedom of association is part of the freedom of speech. The   freedom of speech , which is found in the   First Amendment to the United States Constitution , is applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. In   Gitlow v. New York , Justice Sanford states that "[f]or present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press-which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress-are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States." ^{[ 7 ]}

This constitutionality raises a problem. The most popular alternative to the open primary is the closed primary. However, a mandatory closed primary can also be unconstitutional. In   Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut , the United States Supreme Court determined that   Connecticut 's closed primary law was unconstitutional. The Connecticut closed primary law "[required] voters in any political party primary to be registered members of that party". ^{[ 8 ]}   The   Republican Party   of Connecticut, however, wanted to allow independents to vote in the Republican primary if they so chose. The problem with this closed primary law was that it prevented the Republican Party from allowing independent "registered voters not affiliated with any party to vote in Republican primaries for federal and statewide offices". ^{[ 8 ]}   Since the Republican Party of Connecticut was not able to choose who it wanted to vote in the primary, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, stated that the closed primary law in Connecticut "impermissibly burdens the right of the Party and its members protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments". ^{[ 8 ]}

On October 1, 2007, the   U.S. Court of Appeals   for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Virginia mandatory open primary statute was unconstitutional as applied to the Republicans because it imposed a burden on their freedom to associate under the First Amendment, although it did not explicitly rule on the question of whether an open primary law was in general unconstitutional as a burden on association. ^{[ 9 ]}

Open primaries in the United States - Wikipedia

I wanted to get a repub primary ballot so I could vote for Sanders' and Cotton's opponents. Guess what? The Arkansas GOP has made a rule that only registered repubs may vote for the GOP nominees. The Democratic Party is open for the primaries.

I once knew somebody who thought she could vote for both party primaries.

The potential problem with our voting verification system is as follows.    The people collecting the vote are the same people who could most easily perpetrate voter fraud.    They are also, in most cases, the same people checking for fraud.

A fox in the henhouse scenario 

I wanted to get a repub primary ballot so I could vote for Sanders' and Cotton's opponents.

The fact that you apparently feel this practice would be reasonable and justifiable, speaks to much bigger issues.

It appears the republicans are smarter that the unethical democrats who want to subvert the democratic process. 

Yep.    Some would say preventing willful voter fraud.

“The evidence is that the number of noncitizens illegally voting in federal elections is extremely low, not high enough to have changed the party outcome of any federal election in recent years,”  Walter Olson , a senior fellow at the Cato Institute told us. “Audits and investigations in states like Ohio, Nevada, and North Carolina have found the numbers to be tiny in relation to votes cast. Analysis of voting statistics in parts of the country in areas with large noncitizen populations do not find results consistent with Musk’s claims, and do find results consistent with near-zero attempts by this population to participate in elections. States have many ways to cross-check databases and simply presenting a Social Security card or number will not make you a voter. The consistent experience has been that very few persons in this category mistakenly or deliberately vote.” factcheck

Oh, it isn't too bad?

The fact that Senate democrats are fighting it as Schumer said: "tooth & nail," seems to indicate that democrats may be absolutely depending on voter fraud.

The fact that Senate democrats are fighting it as Schumer said: "tooth & nail," seems to indicate that democrats may be absolutely depending on voter fraud.

Total bullshit. He's fighting it because he's seen the statistics on what percentages certain groups have ID that would qualify under these new onerous unnecessary voter laws that don't fight fraud AT ALL. All they do is disenfranchise eligible voters who tend to vote Democratic. You are lying if you are claiming this is about undocumented or fraudulent votes being cast. Not that I expect anyone on the right to be honest, but it would be nice for a change. Republicans have crafted these voter ID laws specifically to target eligible Democrat voters because Republicans know they can't win unless they cheat. It's just that simple.

The fact that Senate democrats are fighting it as Schumer said: "tooth & nail," seems to indicate that democrats may be absolutely depending on voter fraud.

We are still waiting for even a fragment of proof that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.   How long are you going to make us wait Vic ?

And we are still waiting for an answer to the question in #4 below.

So you think that 83 percent of American voters are wrong?

Seems to sane folk that the seventeen percent of far leftists that think blacks can’t get ids are the wrong ones. 
Maybe a little self reflection would be in order for them.

The problem is that most democrat voters also favor voter ID.

Should voters be required to register every time the district maps are redrawn?  With fast & furious gerrymandering, how are voters supposed to know who they are voting for?

While the rhetoric may be about noncitizens illegally voting, the real problems are how both parties game the system.  No one knows where first base is located let alone knowing Who is on first.  Why should a voter who registered in one district be allowed to vote in a different district?  

My question remains.    

If voter fraud is not an issue why is requiring proof of voter bona fides an issue?

‘If voter fraud is not an issue why is requiring proof of voter bona fides an issue?’
You won’t get a coherent answer here from our left wing friends.

The answer is they need the votes from illegals and dead people. 
The illegal gig is almost up and we should see a much smaller voter base for democrats this election since so many of their voters were deported or are held in deportation centers.

What constitutes “bona fides” is not an objective thing. All 50 states - as per the Constitution - already have their own standards for what it takes to register to vote, or to vote. I have looked at them, and they are remarkably similar, particularly regarding the issue of citizenship. All 50 states require a person be a citizen to register to vote.

Not long ago, Utah analyzed their registered voters , and among some 2.1 million votes, they found 1 (just one) non-citizen registered to vote, and that person did not actually vote. 1 in 2,100,000.

Suddenly, MAGA has decided - without justifying evidence - that that is not good enough.

So, if we are just going to keep making voting more challenging, then yeah, that is a problem. Voting is supposed to be a fundamental right, and the federal government should not seek to arbitrarily or capriciously make it overburdensome.

Yes.   Bona fides, in the scope of this discussion, means first and foremost that one must prove one is a legal US citizen.    There nothing arbitrary about that.    It is the base of any effective election system, in any country.   Here, all 50 US states do require citizenship to vote in statewide elections

Anything less is pointless.

Claiming this isn’t needed because the perceived problem of voter fraud is small, is a ridiculously illogical argument.

first and foremost that one must prove one is a legal US citizen.    There nothing arbitrary about that.

Yea, but how you do that can be. The records for birthright citizenship, for example, are already in the possession of the government. Isn’t it a little silly to expect citizens to procure original documentation from the government, only to give it right back to the government?

Here, all 50 US states do require citizenship to vote in statewide elections

Exactly. And they already check it, which is why new requirements are not necessary.

Claiming this isn’t needed because the perceived problem of voter fraud is small, is a ridiculously illogical argument.

Explain why you find it to be ridiculously illogical. I will tell why I think it’s not.

We already operate this way on a variety of issues. I’ll suggest an analogy or two.

Crime. If you have a town - or section of town - with a very low crime rate (near zero), it doesn’t make any sense to post a policeman on every corner. Resources are finite. Police can be better used elsewhere.

Medicine. We all get the occasional checkup (or we should), but we don’t get blood tests and scans for every conceivable medical condition unless we first present with specific symptoms. Why go to all that trouble and expense if you feel fine?

So, back to voter registration. We have a system that works. All 50 states require citizenship to register to vote. And with exceedingly rare exceptions, only citizens are registered to vote. An even tinier percentage of that already minuscule cohort actually votes, and there is no documented evidence of a single election anywhere having its outcome changed because a non-citizen voted. Finally, states review their elections, investigate fraud, and punish people who violate election laws.

It’s a classic case of “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.”

Will the SAVE Act improve elections? No. Not in a way that you would ever notice. Will it make registering to vote more burdensome for citizens? Yes. Absolutely. So, why do that to citizens? For these reasons, that seems ridiculously illogical.

Will it make registering to vote more burdensome for citizens?

Especially women because a married woman whose last name is different from the one on her birth certificate will have to produce extra documents to show she is who claims to be. Will men have to produce marriage certificates to prove that they are who they say they are?

the TDS rep from texas, chip roy, says women that sign an affidavit stating that they'll vote how their husbands tell them to vote won't have any issues at any polling places ...

He's a special kind of stupid. I bet he makes his wife wash his Klan uniform by hand

Especially women because a married woman whose last name is different from the one on her birth certificate will have to produce extra documents to show she is who claims to be.

Exactly.  Oregon is apparently trying to pass their own version of the act which is causing women to have to purchase passports at a time when Trump quietly relieved some 7,000 libraries of their authority to do the photo's and paperwork for free unless they are government libraries.

Why? 

Will men have to produce marriage certificates to prove that they are who they say they are?

Only non white men /S

Isn’t it a little silly to expect citizens to procure original documentation from the government, only to give it right back to the government?

Can’t argue with that except to say, you suddenly expect our federal government to operate efficiently when it comes to citizenship ID?    C’mon man!

Here, all 50 US states do require citizenship to vote in statewide elections

Exactly. And they already check it, which is why new requirements are not necessary.

Really?    How is proving citizenship a new requirement?    If you can prove it to your state/municipality you are already all set.    Nothing new is being asked for here

Claiming this isn’t needed because the perceived problem of voter fraud is small, is a ridiculously illogical argument.

Explain why you find it to be ridiculously illogical.

Okay

We already operate this way on a variety of issues. I’ll suggest an analogy or two.

Crime. If you have a town - or section of town - with a very low crime rate (near zero), it doesn’t make any sense to post a policeman on every corner. Resources are finite. Police can be better used elsewhere.

But we still have law enforcement available in low crime areas.    In my low crime area we have city, county and State police all ready to respond.    We even have small FBI and Homeland Security offices.    Overkill?    Extraneous?    Doubt many think that when they need them.

Medicine. We all get the occasional checkup (or we should), but we don’t get blood tests and scans for every conceivable medical condition unless we first present with specific symptoms. Why go to all that trouble and expense if you feel fine?

In which case you need to prove who you are.    So healthcare professionals can verify past issues, current meds etc.    Also, show me the laws that were promulgated to specifically deal with this like the laws passed requiring citizenship to vote.    None that I know of.    You are really reaching here.

So, back to voter registration. We have a system that works. All 50 states require citizenship to register to vote. And with exceedingly rare exceptions, only citizens are registered to vote. An even tinier percentage of that already minuscule cohort actually votes, and there is no documented evidence of a single election anywhere having its outcome changed because a non-citizen voted. Finally, states review their elections, investigate fraud, and punish people who violate election laws.

It’s a classic case of “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.”

Will the SAVE Act improve elections? No. Not in a way that you would ever notice. Will it make registering to vote more burdensome for citizens? Yes. Absolutely. So, why do that to citizens? For these reasons, that seems ridiculously illogical.

Overburdensome?    I get so tired of lazy Americans talking about how “burdensome” their existence is in this country.    Voting is a privilege here.    This country doesn’t automatically owe anyone the right to vote without verification.    Proving one’s citizenship IS NOT asking too much for such a privilege.    Get off your lazy asses like the rest of us and do what’s required.   It IS NOT asking too much.     I don’t expect agreement here from you or other usual suspects here.    There is a divergence at play here that will likely never be repaired.    For my part, I will never agree with your position on this issue.    Requiring valid proof of citizenship to vote is as logical as logic can be.    It is hardly a task killing imposition.    Not even close.

How is proving citizenship a new requirement?

It’s because of the new burden and new standard for proof. The burden will now be on the citizen to prove to the state something which the state should already know.

The standard will be specific original, official documents, which may or not be readily available, and will definitely cost money, and require people to negotiate government bureaucracies.

Remember all the controversy over where Obama was born? How we had competing versions of his birth certificate, and debate over its validity based on how it was filled out? If not, please Google a summary. But there, we are talking about an educated man with resources and access, opposed to people determined to cast doubt on those records.

Now multiply that by a few hundred million, and factor in people who are poor in money as well as poorly educated, and they probably don’t have time or skill to go hunting for original documents or having to negotiate with county or state officials, when they need to be at work. It requires an open mind and empathy to appreciate this, but just because a thing is easy for you, doesn’t mean it’s easy for everyone. And if you haven’t had to prove lately that you are a citizen, maybe you should reserve judgement on just how easy that is.

If you’re a man from a relatively stable family, you likely haven’t had to change your name ever. A woman who marries likely has to change her name. A child whose parents divorce and remarry may change their name. That complicates proof of citizenship because your ID does not match your birth certificate.

If you live in a big city, accessing records may be easier than if you live in a rural area. If you are older, records can be especially hard to find. Remember that your copy of records will not be sufficient. Official originals will be required.

You might think that’s a slam dunk, but it’s not. Fires happen. Just ask veterans of a certain age if they can produce their original service records. They can’t because there was a fire.

And again, remember that even then Senator/candidate Obama couldn’t satisfy Republicans. There are probably still people who are convinced he was born in Kenya.

But we still have law enforcement available in low crime areas.

Read what I wrote. I didn’t say “law enforcement.” I said “a policeman on every corner.” That is an extreme level of policing, not just ordinary law enforcement. Please engage with the analogy honestly, as written. Changing it so you can make a straw man argument is not honest.

You also seem to misunderstand or misrepresent my health care analogy. It’s not about identification. It’s about a level of scrutiny and resource allocation appropriate to the patient and their actual situation.

If it helps, imagine if everyone got a full body MRI every year. Perhaps you have never needed one, so you don’t know how it works, but they take a significant amount of time, and there is usually a wait just to get the thing at all. If everyone had to do it, we would never get it done. Saying “it’s easy to get an MRI” is no longer true if you change the conditions.

Voting is a privilege here.

Yes and no. While the Constitution does not specifically enumerate a right to vote, the Supreme Court has recognized several rights that are not specifically enumerated, including the right to vote. See the Ninth Amendment, for a broad example of how that can be true. And if you like, I can cite specific cases, of course.

But of course, there is no way to have a right to vote on everything, so all of our jurisprudence on voting gets down to government denying or burdening the voting that we do have in some way that is considered unfair, unjust, or otherwise violates the Constitution or our laws. Thus, you can’t put requirements and restrictions on voting that have the effect of disparate impacts on people who should be treated equally.

Women don't have to change their names anymore. I didn't 36 years ago when I got married and my daughter kept her birth name when she got married 13 years ago. Does that mean we won't have to go thru hoops to vote? I hope not,  but I have my birth certificate handy and I think she does, also. I'm already registered to vote so I hope there isn't a problem.

p.s. Good comment

Yeah, I’m sure you feel you got me but none of that changes anything for me.

If one feels “overburdened” by requirements to prove voter bona fides in the USA perhaps they should investigate other options.

I didn't change my name, but I still had issues getting the incompetent person at the county clerk's office to believe my birth certificate was valid.  I was applying for a passport, along with my then-husband and our son.  My ex and I were both born in WV, but in different counties.  At that time (don't know if it's still the same), birth certificates were filed with the county, not the state, so our birth certificates looked different from each other's.  Since his was issued in the state capitol, they assumed his was more "valid" than mine, even though mine was an original birth certificate, supplied by my the County Clerk of my birth county, filled out by hand with a raised seal and the County Clerk's signatures.  She didn't want to take my application at all.  There was literally no other birth certificate I could give her that would have qualified me for a passport.  That was the one my county issued.  Another would have looked the same, other than it would have been a copy rather than an original.

It gave me a new appreciation for what Obama went through.

And I have no reason to believe the same incompetent bullshit wouldn't prevent many women from voting now.  My birth certificate looks the same as it did back then.  The same issues with it, real or imaginary, remain.

If voter fraud is not an issue why is requiring proof of voter bona fides an issue?

Because of WHO proposed it.  Remember back in the 90's Chuck Schumer proposed it and it failed miserably (as most things democrats propose). 

Schumer embraced ID laws to counter fraud in the 1990s, but now calls voter ID ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

A video has emerged of Senate Democratic leader    Charles E. Schumer    in 1996 talking about the importance of ID checks to prevent welfare fraud by illegal immigrants.

The video is going viral online as Mr.      Schumer       and the rest of his party now vehemently oppose Republicans’ voter ID legislation. He describes the GOP-authored SAVE America Act, which requires photo ID at the polls and proof of citizenship to register to vote, as “   Jim Crow       2.0” and says it is designed to disenfranchise minorities.

“Let’s admit the truth. Everywhere people go, they’re asked for a Social Security card. In fact, one way to prove you’re a bona fide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver’s license and a social security card,” Mr.      Schumer   , then a House lawmaker, said in support of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

“This is an anti-fraud amendment. All over where we go, people say, ‘Well, why can’t you stop illegal immigrants or others from coming here?’ And the number one answer we give our constituents is, ‘When they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud.’”

washingtontimes

It wasn't racist, it didn't make it more difficult for women to obtain ID's etc..  Fast forward to 2026 and Republicans reintroduce it and it's a problem.  Suddenly, according to Democrats, it's not only racist but minorities and women aren't smart enough to obtain the required ID.  

Details, details ….

The bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote

Every state (and the District of Columbia) already requires that a person be a citizen of the United States to register to vote. 

Every. Single. One.

So the work of establishing whether or not registered voters are citizens is already being done by the states. And this is better because many people do not have verifiable documentary evidence that proves their citizenship .

For example, even if you have a copy of your birth certificate, it may not be an official, original document. You might be able to order one from the county or state, but think about that. If the state already has the original record, it’s kind of stupidly inefficient to require you to order it and then submit it back to the state just to register to vote.

Even then, if you are a married woman, your name likely does not match the name on your birth certificate. So you would have to produce an original marriage certificate and proof of name change - something you would have to order from the state or county. So again, if the state already has the records on its people, what is the point in making the people produce them?

Another alternative is passports. More than half the country doesn’t have a non-expired passport.

What about RealID? Weirdly, this is not considered proof of citizenship. Makes one wonder what the point of requiring them is.

Meanwhile, evidence shows that registration of non-citizens and voting by non-citizens is vanishingly small , and has never been sufficient to change the outcome of any election. 

This is an inefficient solution in search of a problem.

What about RealID? Weirdly, this is not considered proof of citizenship. Makes one wonder what the point of requiring them is.

I got my Real ID last February. I had to show my birth certificate along with other documents to get it. Last year people were scrambling to get their birth certificates because of the deadline.

So...if your birth certificate is proof of citizenship then why is your Real ID not? That makes no sense to me

You can be a Legal Permanent Resident and get a Real ID. I didn’t know that, but I just looked it up.

For the Real ID to satisfy the SAVE Act (as I read it), it would have to say you are a citizen or list your birthplace in the US. I don’t know about yours, but mine doesn’t do either of those things.

As an aside, I find it ironic that the administration is pushing a voter registration law based on birthright citizenship while simultaneously arguing to the Supreme Court that no such thing exists.

My Real ID doesn't say where I was born, either. Thanks for the info!

This is an inefficient solution in search of a problem.

...the definition of conservative Republican

"We will not let it pass in the Senate," Schumer told CNN's Jake Tapper.

I wonder what changed.  

Schumer embraced ID laws to counter fraud in the 1990s, but now calls voter ID ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

A video has emerged of Senate Democratic leader  Charles E. Schumer  in 1996 talking about the importance of ID checks to prevent welfare fraud by illegal immigrants.

The video is going viral online as Mr.   Schumer   and the rest of his party now vehemently oppose Republicans’ voter ID legislation. He describes the GOP-authored SAVE America Act, which requires photo ID at the polls and proof of citizenship to register to vote, as “ Jim Crow   2.0” and says it is designed to disenfranchise minorities.

“Let’s admit the truth. Everywhere people go, they’re asked for a Social Security card. In fact, one way to prove you’re a bona fide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver’s license and a social security card,” Mr.   Schumer , then a House lawmaker, said in support of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

“This is an anti-fraud amendment. All over where we go, people say, ‘Well, why can’t you stop illegal immigrants or others from coming here?’ And the number one answer we give our constituents is, ‘When they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud.’”

washingtontimes

An epiphany of convenience.

True.  I think its a matter of WHO proposed the legislation.  Chucky and the idiots proposed it in 1996.  No claims of it being racist, no idiot claims that it's "Jim Crow 2.0".  Fast forward 30 years and the opposition proposed it and he and the democrats are throwing a tantrum.  

Their hypocrisy is glaring.

‘I wonder what changed.  ’

To include do everything to stop Trump no matter how many Americans approve.