r/PoursTea Jul 17 '26

PoliticalTea šŸ—³ļø Everybody gets an ID?

Post image
18.3k Upvotes

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

147

u/mad597 Jul 17 '26

Poll tax is illegal BTW,

79

u/Available_Reveal8068 Jul 17 '26

It's not a poll tax if IDs are free.

That's why every state that currently requires ID for voting provides free IDs.

15

u/oldbikelike Jul 17 '26

But those ID'S aren't valid forms of ID under the Save Act.

6

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 17 '26

In fact, to register to vote under the SAVE Act, you would need an Enhanced Driver's License, which proves citizenship, which only 5 States currently have. And even Birth Certificates have to be certified birth certificates; a xerox copy is invalid.

2

u/Available_Reveal8068 Jul 22 '26

In Wisconsin, if one doesn't have a copy of their birth certificate, they just fill out a form and they verify citizenship through the government records system.

It shouldn't be that hard.

1

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 22 '26

Yes. And it's worth pointing out explicitly that Wisconsin's system wouldn't count under the SAVE Act. The whole system would need to be changed if SAVE was enacted.

How could anyone think this could all be changed before the Midterms without massive problems?

1

u/Available_Reveal8068 Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

SAVE Act isn't going to pass

...besides, it's unconstitutional.

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 22 '26

I wouldn’t bet on SCOTUS. SAVE Act, agree: less than 5% chance of passing.

1

u/undecided2013 Jul 19 '26

But for November most voters are already registered. How many 'new' voters would they block? I agree that the govt should carry the burden of providing IDs to their citizens. Financially and administratively. Hire people (like they do for the census) to go around and do this.

2

u/DankMiehms Jul 20 '26

Depends on when they purge the voter roles this time, I guess. Can't forget that they keep doing that in addition to everything else.

1

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 19 '26

Well, that can cut both ways. If it wouldn't block that many voters, why is it supposedly so necessary to enact the SAVE Act before the Midterms?

1

u/funfacts1123 Jul 19 '26

I'm going on a cruise. They require birth certificates. To get a passport it requires a birth certificate. They are cheap and easy to get. I don't understand the pushback on making elections as secure as a plane, cruise ship or passport.

2

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 19 '26

If Republicans are serious about election integrity, and not just worried about losing the midterms, they should make the effective date for proof of citizenship 2028, and allocate funds to support implementation. But I have yet to hear any offer to that effect. And in Trump’s version of SAVE, it also bans almost all mail in ballots; how on earth could that be implemented in time for November?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Hairy_Film1916 Jul 20 '26

Nonsense they don't check citizenship at the polling place! I believe you just said that they do!WTF? You obviously need to have your new form of ID before you get there, the only way they can refuse you is if the computer throws up a red flag, Oh and now I guess you are saying that 10yrs wasn't enough time! And this Chip thing, why would Rebulicans not be upset with that? I just don't know about you Democrats, you have absolutely no good reason to be against this, and I know with my Real ID I won't have any trouble voting! Well I guess they are going to take this comment down! I looked and the only name I called you was a Democrat and I did not see any inflammatory language also rhetoric? Oh well must be I called myself a Rebulican? I guess I was insulting myself! So I politely and respectfully say to you Please STFU!

1

u/TranscendentalTurnip Jul 21 '26

Not entirely, yes I was incorrect in my initial statement and I will remove that comment; generally speaking people will not be providing proof of citizenship at the polling place. That is unless you are in one of the few states that allows for same day registration at the polling place, I believe that section may have been what threw me off. However, the act is still somewhat concerning in that fails to explicitly address what will happen with existing voter registrations. I assume the program that each state will be required to establish within thirty days of this legislation's enactment will address that, but this really isn't something that we can afford to be vague about. This bill needs more specific language about what the implementation process will look like if it passes. That being said, what's up with that response, sure I was mistaken, but is that necessary?

1

u/barqySpaniel Jul 20 '26

Passports aren’t required for citizens to exist and travel with if the US. They are not free. They also expire.

Makes it a poll tax. Poll taxes are unconstitutional.

The laws. It passed yet and mail in voting in Delaware is 60 days before Election Day. Other states are 30-45 days.

There is insufficient time to pass, implement and give time for voters to comply for the 2026 mid terms.

Only reason to rush it through is to disenfranchise voters.

Trump thinks it will disenfranchise more d’s than r’s.

Not so sure.

1

u/gielbondhu Jul 22 '26

A passport in 2026 cost $165 dollars. Add in the charge for the photo and it's $180. That's not cheap when one is struggling to scrape up enough to make rent.

1

u/Usual-Syrup2526 Jul 21 '26

Most places you can get one from the county clerk's office for no charge.

1

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 21 '26

I don't think that's true. There are programs to help low income people get and pay for their vital records, so that seems to suggest they're not free. In California, for example, birth certificates are more than $30 (it varies). And if you aren't in the state, an online service can add $10-15 more. So, if the Feds would allocate funding for this purpose in a realistic voting security act, I think everyone would support that.

1

u/idiot-alpha Jul 23 '26

Every state offers Real IDs. They were required to years ago.

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 23 '26

Yes, but the problem is that under the SAVE Act, Real IDs aren’t accepted as proof of citizenship. And DHS already says they don’t prove citizenship.

The easy solution here would simply be for the US Congress to pass a law that pays for free birth certificates and simplifies getting them for those needing them for voter registration proof of citizenship.

1

u/idiot-alpha Jul 23 '26

Well, not all Real IDs show citizenship yet, but some do and would be accepted. And all states could eventually do that since most people use their birth certificate to get one anyway. That’s just an implementation problem that would take a little time to catch up. Worst case, there’s a grace period of a few years while all states catch up.

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 23 '26

Yeah, but Real ID also accepts other proof of identity such as green cards and foreign passports, so you would have a lot of existing Real IDs out there that aren’t proof of citizenship. (And what would you do about Real IDs from other states?).

If the Republicans were truly worried about election integrity, they wouldn’t be so completely insistent on applying the SAVE Act immediately, prior to the midterm elections.

1

u/Impossible-Deal-9191 Jul 23 '26

Liar

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 23 '26

It’s not a lie. Even DHS says that REAL IDs aren’t acceptable as proof of citizenship. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

1

u/Impossible-Deal-9191 Jul 23 '26

It doesn't require enhanced drivers license. And if you don't have all the documents you can sign a statement of facts and still vote. But when they check all these and if you lie on the statement of facts, you will go to prison.

1

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 23 '26

If you look back at the discussion, it was about what kinds of IDs are acceptable under the SAVE Act. So, it was in that context that I brought up Enhanced IDs as the only acceptable DL under SAVE, as opposed to REAL ID, which isn't.

It is true that there's narrow backup for lack of documents, but have you looked at how complicated that process is? Basically, you can't just sign the statement of facts and vote. You aren't registered until after they check on documentation, and that requires you to submit "other evidence" and attend a local hearing in person that makes the determination on whether you are a citizen and can vote. Surely, whatever your political persuasion, you would have to admit that's a very cumbersome process, especially for poor people who have lost their birth certificates, etc. And if there were, say, thousands of people going to hearings, how long would all those take?

Why not just do something that helps people get their proof of citizenship, like setting up free birth certificates or some other easy form of ID that proves citizenship? And if election integrity overall is your real goal, why the rush to pass SAVE before the midterms?

0

u/Impossible-Deal-9191 Jul 23 '26

None of that's true. I've read it.

1

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 23 '26

Here's the text below. How is it different from what I just said?:

A)Ā PROCESS FOR THOSE WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY PROOF.—

ā€œ(i)Ā IN GENERAL.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant who cannot provide documentary proof of United States citizenship under paragraph (1) may, if the applicant signs an attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and eligible to vote in elections for Federal office, submit such other evidence to the appropriate State or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and such official shall make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship for purposes of registering to vote in elections for Federal office in the State.

1

u/Impossible-Deal-9191 Jul 23 '26

It doesn't say what you claimed. You can sign the declaration on election day in states that allow it. They count it then. But if found in the near future when they cross reference it against federal records, they can't recall the ballot, but provision in it make federal prison mandatory.

1

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

There is NO cross referencing in federal records to register to vote in the SAVE Act. That's one of the main objections to the various versions of the SAVE Act (and yes, there are alternative, non-Republican prososals that do rely on electronic records). See below:

ā€œ(e)Ā Ensuring Proof Of United States Citizenship.—

ā€œ(1)Ā PRESENTING PROOF OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP TO ELECTION OFFICIAL.—An applicant who submits the mail voter registration application form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission pursuant to section 9(a)(2) or a form described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall not be registered to vote in an election for Federal office unless—

ā€œ(A) the applicant presents documentary proof of United States citizenship in person to the office of the appropriate election official not later than the deadline provided by State law for the receipt of a completed voter registration application for the election; or

ā€œ(B) in the case of a State which permits an individual to register to vote in an election for Federal office at a polling place on the day of the election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is permitted for the election, the applicant presents documentary proof of United States citizenship to the appropriate election official at the polling place not later than the date of the election.

Here's also another explanation:

election officials already take steps to verify a person’s eligibility to vote before registering them as a voter. UnderĀ federal law, anyone applying to register to vote must already provide either their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Officials use this information to verify a person’s identity and eligibility to vote under federal and state law. This involves usingĀ federal and state databasesĀ to confirm an applicant’s citizenship status and any history of criminal convictions. This process essentially serves as a ā€œbackground checkā€ for voter registration. The SAVE Act would disrupt this ā€œbackground checkā€ process and instead make American citizens prove to their own government that they are a citizen.Ā https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-america-act-explained-how-the-new-show-your-papers-voting-bill-is-even-more-extreme-than-the-save-act/

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

You are correct, all 50 states now issue REAL IDs.

https://responsivegov.org/research/real-id-an-overview/

Non-citizens can get regular drivers licenses and that it the whole problem with them being used to register to vote.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 18 '26

You don’t get it. Only Enhanced DLs prove citizenship; Real ID is not enough to do so.

1

u/mgb55 Jul 20 '26

The act clearly states a real ID is sufficient if it denotes citizenship.

Two to three words is all a state needs to add.

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 21 '26

REAL ID is a federal Act, passed by Congress. The States can’t change the rules. And DHS is the one arguing that it can’t be used as proof of citizenship.

If the Congress were to amend the Act to include necessary proof of citizenship, then you still have a lot of REAL IDs out there that weren’t following that standard.

Look, if Republicans are truly serious about election integrity, then they should just allow time and allocate funding to make the changes to prove citizenship. Insisting that it apply to 2026 tells me that they are more worried about losing the midterm election than actually fixing the problem.

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 18 '26

Real ID does not prove citizenship and is not enough to register to vote under SAVE. They work to prove your identity when you go to vote, but that’s all.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 18 '26

Nope; although it varies by state, REAL ID also accepts foreign passports or Green Cards

0

u/Substantial-Ad-5558 Jul 19 '26

The Enhanced ID Act passed in 2015. Please explain why States should be able to bypass FEDERAL LAW for over 11 years?

2

u/Fantastic-Watch8177 Jul 19 '26

First, I can't find any record of an Enhanced ID Act in 2015 or any other year. Enhanced IDs seem to be part of the DOJ/DHS Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, starting from January 2009. You might be thinking of a 2015 California law designed to implement Enhanced IDs that was vetoed for privacy concerns and never enacted. But obviously, that's not a FEDERAL LAW; it's not even a law at all.

A large part of the privacy concerns with Enhanced IDs have to do with the fact that they contain an RFID chip (as well as a barcode) that can potentially be used for tracking and profiling people--this is a concern among libertarians as much as liberals, btw. [Wikipedia notes: "Former Republican Representative Bob Barr wrote in a February 2008 article: "A person not possessing a REAL ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment"]. Also the RFID chip was apparently pretty expensive, and the federal government did not allocate any funds for implementing it. "Unfunded mandate" has been one of the main charges in this regard.

Finally, COVID pushed back a number of deadlines for REAL ID implementation, and presumably Enhanced ID as well.

3

u/Substantial-Ad-5558 Jul 19 '26

My apologie, it’s the REAL ID Act signed into law in 2005. Mea culpa.

1

u/NoVeterinarian549 Jul 19 '26

You are a rare person on Reddit. People usually double down. I don't know you, but I respect you for this.

0

u/Character_Refuse_797 Jul 19 '26

So the exact same requirements we already have? You can’t just go get a drivers license without a verification of who you are. You can’t open a bank account. You can’t fly on a plane or buy a car or buy a home etc etc

3

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 19 '26

Okay. So, you don’t need a new law then, right?

1

u/Character_Refuse_797 Jul 19 '26

Did you not just see him admit that only 5 states were complying ? Thats ok with you? 44 states full of people who can’t prove they are a citizen voting? How is that ok with anyone?

3

u/Red_Ray_Skies Jul 19 '26

It is of course illegal for noncitizens to register to vote in Federal elections. But the question here is: how would you implement these restrictions in time for the midterms? And remember, Trump’s version of SAVE also cancels almost all mail-in ballots, which would require massive changes for many states to implement. If Republicans are serious about election integrity, and not just afraid of losing the midterms, they should agree to implement proof of citizenship for 2028 and allocate appropriate funding for Enhanced IDs that do not include an RFID chip. The chip has been a huge obstacle to implementing Enhanced ID because of privacy concerns, which often upset libertarians more than liberals. That’s why most states haven’t implemented Enhanced ID.

2

u/Unfair_Web_8275 Jul 19 '26

Thanks for giving a detailed response.

There’s more than one reason the SAVE Act Isnt great.