5 ms·

> That being said, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship I think this is fine if it also then means that obtaining a qualifying ID i

• Auracle 7mo ago
  Pretty much every bill that has ever been put forward for needing an ID to vote has had a provision for free IDs. That’s not where things get caught up. Also, it’s a pretty silly thing anyways. I don’t even drink and I still need my driver’s license quite a few times every year.
  • stetrain 7mo ago
    Free and accessible are not the same thing. And a driver's license is not necessarily proof of citizenship.
    • delecti 7mo ago
      Yep. And in fact there's been a ton of resistance for 20 years to rolling out an alternate form of driver's license which does act as proof of citizenship. See the REAL ID, which even now is only kinda a requirement to fly domestically.
      • mothballed 7mo ago
        .gov own court filings have argued Real ID isn't a reliable proof of citizenship and have refused to accept it as such. "...based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alsd.76579/gov.uscourts.alsd.76579.44.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alsd.76...
      • jagenabler2 7mo ago
        I'm not sure where this idea that REAL ID is a form of citizenship came from. I am not a citizen and i was given a REAL ID just by proving my legal (non-immigrant) status.
        • wat10000 7mo ago
          I think a lot of people just forget that non-citizen legal residents exist.
      • DangitBobby 7mo ago
        I have a Real ID, and I supplied a proof of citizenship to get it. However, in my state, it's possible to obtain a Real ID without providing proof of citizenship, so my Real ID does not qualify as proof of citizenship. My passport is the only document I have that could function as both photo ID and proof of citizenship. Passports are not the easiest things to obtain and they are not free.
      • jjmarr 7mo ago
        Real ID only confirms one was lawfully present in the United States when the ID was issued, it is not intended to prove citizenship. https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs For example, DACA recipients, temporary protected status refugees, and citizens of states in free association with the USA (Micronesia/Marshall Islands/Palau) that are in the USA are all eligible for Real ID.
        • brendoelfrendo 7mo ago
          Correct. My understanding of the SAVE act is that it would require an enhanced RealID drivers license to act as sole proof of citizenship, which is a type of license only issued in 5 states (all bordering Canada) that can act as proof of citizenship when driving across the US-Canada border. Even people with a valid RealID would be required to bring an additional form of ID to prove citizenship, such as a birth certificate. The fact that this is confusing to people is, in and of itself, a huge red flag for the impact this will have on voter participation.
  • lokar 7mo ago
    The current bill Trump is pushing for requires "documentary proof of citizenship ", this can actually be very hard. It means an original/certified birth certificate, as well as any subsequent name changes (mostly married women). This is completely unnecessary. We establish citizenship, very reliably, at time of registration. This is on of the main jobs of the registrar of voters. They have plenty of time to look up the details of the person and establish citizenship (and intentionally lying in this process is a serious crime). We then establish identity at the time of voting, again, very reliably. Intentional voter impersonation or voting when not eligible is vanishingly rare in the US.
    • tastyfreeze 7mo ago
      Some states only require a piece of mail and checking a box saying you are legally allowed to vote to register. Then when you checkin to vote the workers are not permitted to ask for ID to prove you are the person you claim to be. At no point during that process is there presentation of proof of citizenship.
      • giancarlostoro 7mo ago
        I have cousins from Cuba and Venezuela, hearing this sort of information is rather alarming to them to say the least.
      • selectodude 7mo ago
        Any ballots that are cast under same-day registration are cast as provisional and will go through the full verification process if the election is close enough where those ballots are necessary. Source: actually ran a fucking election precinct. Non-citizens aren’t casting ballots illegally.
        • tastyfreeze 7mo ago
          I'm not talking about same day registration. If you are on the rolls and proof of citizenship is not required to register, then how do you as a poll worker know the person on the rolls is a citizen?
  • d1sxeyes 7mo ago
    Even if the ID is nominally free, if I have to take a day off and pay for bus/train tickets to wait in line at some office, it’s not really free.
    • 0cf8612b2e1e 7mo ago
      Some districts have limited DMV hours in advance of voting days. Coincidental how these might be Democratic leaning areas in Republican states.
      • jeffbee 7mo ago
        I don't even know why this is downvoted. Standard technique in Texas. Harris County does not have 40 DPS offices for its 5 million people. The current backlog to get a DPS drivers license appointment in Harris County is 45 days. The next available appointment in Kerrville is tomorrow. That is inequitable. But anyway, none of that is the real core issue with the idea of voter ID. The real issue is that there are many living Americans who were born in jurisdictions that steadfastly refused to issue birth certificates to Black people.
        • superxpro12 7mo ago
          This doesn't have to be binary... there can be multiple sources of disenfranchisement. They all add up.
    • SoftTalker 7mo ago
      That's life. Figure it out. It's really an insult to a group of people to imply that they aren't capable of being a functioning adult in society.
      • superxpro12 7mo ago
        "Voting is only from 9-4" and you have a real job. Let's not pretend this wouldn't immediately be taken advantage of in certain places where disenfranchisement is real.
  • TSiege 7mo ago
    > Pretty much every bill that has ever been put forward for needing an ID to vote has had a provision for free IDs. Do you have a source for this because I have seen very few laws like this and runs counter to the overt intention of these laws
    • sejje 7mo ago
      Look up the 25 states that already have voter ID laws, and corresponding free-id programs to avoid being considered a poll tax.
    • mulmen 7mo ago
      You can make it free but still require a person to travel to the county seat or some other distant location to get the ID. That requirement disproportionately hinders minority and poor voters. It’s also easy to “forget” their registrations.
  • joshgachnang 7mo ago
    While Wisconsin was debating this, they also closed a bunch of DMVs and limited hours for other ones. The WI constitution enshrines the ability to vote. So you may think it's silly and for 99% of people it may be silly, but if anyone is prevented from voting because there's not a reasonable way for them to get a license, their rights are being infringed.
• xvector 7mo ago
  Even the poorest people have a state ID or drivers license. You cannot get most jobs without some legal ID.
  • orwin 7mo ago
    In the US, a driver license isn't a proof of citizenship. Also, state IDs are not accepted by federal agencies, so it probably wouldn't work as proof of citizenship on federal elections.
    • mplewis9z 7mo ago
      Federal elections are all run by the individual states, so a state ID would be all you need.
      • stetrain 7mo ago
        If there is a federal law requiring proof of citizenship, as is currently being argued in Congress, a state ID would not be all you need since they are not proof of citizenship.
        • deleted 7mo ago
          [deleted]
    • lokar 7mo ago
      There really are not federal elections. We call them that, but they are state elections for federal office.
  • appointment 7mo ago
    In many states these are available without proof of citizenship. When people say proof of citizenship they usually mean a passport or REALID.
    • stvltvs 7mo ago
      Most state-issued Real IDs don't count as proof of citizenship under the SAVE Act. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/will-save-act-allow-real-id-to-be-acceptable-4a8f8e https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/will-save-act-allo...
• ericmay 7mo ago
  > I think this is fine if it also then means that obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens. I completely agree and I don't think there is a fair argument to suggest otherwise.
  • stetrain 7mo ago
    Right, so proposals that do not adequately address this point are not fair, and this is why the issue is so contentious in the US. I absolutely support ID to vote provided that everyone who is eligible and wants to vote can get such an ID and vote without hassle. I don't support most attempts to pass Voter ID laws because I am wary that they would not actually result in that outcome.
  • mulmen 7mo ago
    Great but history is proof that it won’t be equally accessible to everyone. There’s no evidence these laws are necessary. This juice just ain’t worth the squeeze.
• dolni 7mo ago
  > but also have places where getting to a government office to get such an ID is difficult or expensive Where in the US do you find it's difficult for people to get an ID? Where is it not? What percentage of the population has an ID in a place where it's difficult to get one vs somewhere it is easier? What constitutes an ID being expensive? Nearly every country in the world requires proof of citizenship to vote. How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem? Do you think that their democratic processes might be compromised because of it?
  • orwin 7mo ago
    The person I used to stay with when I used to visit WV don't have a proof of citizenship. He doesn't know where his birth certificate is (probably with the US army if they kept track of their nurses giving birth on ex-allied territory during a war), and get by with is SSN and driver license. How it works in my country : my electoral card is freely sent to my address when I register to my voting office. I can vote with it, or with an official ID, as long as I'm in the correct place. The only moment I need my ID is to cast a vote on behalf of someone who identified me as a 'surrogate'.
  • zinekeller 7mo ago
    > What percentage of the population has an ID in a place where it's difficult to get one vs somewhere it is easier? Not the OP, but except for passports (and passport cards)... there isn't really any federal-level ID in the US (and passport booklets/cards are expensive, just a bit over $100 IIRC). The nearest equivalent in the state level are driver's licenses, which are also on the expensive side considering the ancillary costs (because it's a driver's license, not just an identification card). This is also the reason why US-centric companies like PayPal, for this exact reason, accepts a driver's license as proof of identification (obviously where not otherwise prohibited by local laws). Some (New York for example) do have an ID (called a non-DL ID, that's how embedded driver's license is in the US), but most states do not have a per se ID. > What constitutes an ID being expensive? Developing countries, rather ironically, issue their IDs for free? Okay, indirectly paid by taxes, but there's no upfront cost. The above-mentioned identity documents have a clear cost attached to them. > How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem? Do you think that their democratic processes might be compromised because of it? Cannot talk about other countries (because there is an ID system and it's not a controversial affair to them), but instead I'll answer with a reflection of the US system. Unfortunately, American ID politics are hard, mainly due to concerns of surveillance, but I think (only my opinion) because some of them want those historically disenfranchised (even if a fully native-born US citizen) de facto disenfranchised. This means that there is no uniform and freely-issued identification system in the US (or even a requirement to do that at the state level). Unfortunately, this... is a tough nut to crack, politically-speaking.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• jonas21 7mo ago
  > I think this is fine if it also then means that obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens. This is essentially what the Supreme Court said when they upheld Indiana's Voter ID law in 2008 [1]: > The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483. The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver’s license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana’s BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. > Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote. > The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/
  • stetrain 7mo ago
    Yes, but I don't think most of those IDs qualify as "proof of citizenship." Even a RealID compliant ID is not direct proof of citizenship. Others in the comment chain have talked about localities with very few DMV officer per capita in some districts and appointment wait times of over a month. If we are going to require such a step to be eligible to vote, we need to hold states and municipalities to a high standard of providing an adequate level of service for all citizens.
• charcircuit 7mo ago
  >obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens. I do not think it is that straightforward. Making it more accessible makes it possible for people with less skin in the game able to vote. Imagine how invested someone who owns several properties and businesses in a city is and how much they care about the success of the city compared to some other person who is just renting an apartment and has not even a job in that city meaning they could move at any time. The vote of the first person is much more important than the second. Trying to make voting overly accessible may make more people from the second category start voting which could result in bad decisions being made because people can easily move away if things go wrong.
  • donkeybeer 7mo ago
    Yes I think anyone under twice charcircuits net worth is unworthy to vote and should be debarred from voting.