House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote

[GoldenBoy89]

Did he peacefully leave office when Biden was sworn into office as President? Yes. Therefore, President Trump did NOT engage in voter suppression at all.

If he could have he would have happily overturned the election, nullifying millions of votes. Voter suppression. His attempts to sow distrust in our elections is also a form of voter suppression.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As a German I am just amazed that this hasn't been a requirement before. Here you need to be registered in the electoral register in order to vote, and for that you need proof of citizenship. Anything else would allow non-citizens to vote, and how is that not banana-republic stuff?

It's already functionally true - you need to be a citizen to vote, and in order to register to vote, you have to present multiple forms of ID. The problem is that we don't have a unified national ID system, so forms of ID that are accepted or required can vary state to state, and they're not always something that every person has easy access to, so it's become somewhat of a thorny issue. It's compounded by the fact that voter ID laws have been used to suppress voting in certain communities (most notably the African-American community following the Civil War, because slaves weren't given birth certificates or recognized as citizens until after the war (and we underserved for many decades afterwards), and thus often had great difficulty proving their identities. It's much less of an issue now , but there's baggage attached to it still.

If we had a unified national ID that was issued for free to every citizen at birth, I think very few people would have an issue with requiring that that ID be presented in order to vote, but for whatever reason, those who argue most strongly for requiring voters to show ID tend to be deeply opposed to a national ID system.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You might want to do better than a Wikipedia link and your link did not really talk about "significant voter suppression over the last few national elections.

It also didn't mention unicorns.

 

[Fantine]

You are proud of voter suppression, gerrymandering, closing polls early in cities to prevent black people from voting?
You are proud of Republicans who want to put their thumb on the scale and make things harder?
God would not support corruption and dishonesty and neither will I.

I apologize for this quote. I realize that to many, relentless overexposure to vulgarity and insult laced propaganda has made it the new normal.
Because I am in my 70's and have heard decorum, facts, and civilized discourse for six decades, I know the difference.
Younger people may have been so unfortunate as never to have heard democracy in action.

 

[RileyG]

State issued ID doesn’t necessarily prove citizenship.

Ok? Regardless. Why is requiring an ID a bad thing? That’s what I don’t understand. Forgive me.

 

[RileyG]

I apologize for this quote. I realize that to many, relentless overexposure to vulgarity and insult laced propaganda has made it the new normal.
Because I am in my 70's and have heard decorum, facts, and civilized discourse for six decades, I know the difference.
Younger people may have been so unfortunate as never to have heard democracy in action.

Um. No. I’ll be 30 in October, and I’ve definitely seen democracy in our nation and in action.

 

[RDKirk]

For married persons, a documented and legal marriage license should be sufficient instead of a passport. My wife didn't need a passport to get her last name legally changed.

A marriage license does not prove citizenship. That would be a secondary document a married woman would need.

 

[JSRG]

None of those things are constitutional rights.

Voting isn't a constitutional right either. The Constitution does give a few rules for depriving someone of the vote (you cannot deny someone's right to vote based on race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or (if someone is 18 or older) age), but beyond that there is no inherent right to vote.

 

[RileyG]

A marriage license does not prove citizenship. That would be a secondary document a married woman would need.

That's true. Neither do baptismal records, other people's birth certificates, expired driver licenses etc.

 

[RDKirk]

What voter suppression? What’s wrong with having an ID to vote? How is that a bad thing? Odd.

There is not currently and "ID" that proves citizenship, except a passport. A birth certificate alone wouldn't be enough...that would require the birth certificate and an ID. The only single document that proves the person standing before you is a citizen is a passport.

Which means the "right" to vote has a price tag.

 

[RileyG]

Voting isn't a constitutional right either. The Constitution does give a few rules for depriving someone of the vote (you cannot deny someone's right to vote based on race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or (if someone is 18 or older) age), but beyond that there is no inherent right to vote.

Active felons cannot vote unless they appeal.

 

[RileyG]

There is not currently and "ID" that proves citizenship, except a passport. A birth certificate alone wouldn't be enough...that would require the birth certificate and an ID. The only single document that proves the person standing before you is a citizen is a passport.

Which means the "right" to vote has a price tag.

Ah, that makes sense.

When I voted this past presidential election, I showed my ID, which was required, then voted.

In my humble opinion, that was fair.

 

[Valletta]

Please explain that to the Parkland, Sandy Hook and so many other grieving parents.
Then duck.

There are far more murders due to liberals being soft on crime and letting so many violent criminals into our country. Those were preventable. And I see so little remorse.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

It's already functionally true - you need to be a citizen to vote, and in order to register to vote, you have to present multiple forms of ID. The problem is that we don't have a unified national ID system, so forms of ID that are accepted or required can vary state to state, and they're not always something that every person has easy access to, so it's become somewhat of a thorny issue. It's compounded by the fact that voter ID laws have been used to suppress voting in certain communities (most notably the African-American community following the Civil War, because slaves weren't given birth certificates or recognized as citizens until after the war (and we underserved for many decades afterwards), and thus often had great difficulty proving their identities. It's much less of an issue now , but there's baggage attached to it still.

If we had a unified national ID that was issued for free to every citizen at birth, I think very few people would have an issue with requiring that that ID be presented in order to vote, but for whatever reason, those who argue most strongly for requiring voters to show ID tend to be deeply opposed to a national ID system.

Thank you for the nuanced response. Having a unified national ID is certainly beneficial in many ways. Is it currently more difficult to acquire some kind of ID than filing a request at a certain office? Getting an ID is associated with a certain level of effort, I'm wondering if the perception of that effort (and how much effort is "too much") is different in our countries.

I don't know that "for free" is a reasonable expectation, since printing these special documents and all the paperwork attached to it is quite an expenditure on the government's part. As a reference point: In Germany an ID costs $25 for people under 24 (the ID needs to be renewed every 6 years), and $42 for people above 24 (now it needs to be renewed only every 10 years). The reason the ID needs to be renewed here from time to time is because for it to be less prone to forgery it contains a picture of the ID holder (and a person's face changes more drastically at a younger age).

By the way, while we do take our ID to the polling station, we usually don't need to actually show it. It is only needed for the one-time voter registration at 18 and then you can vote for the rest of your life. This would of course be a little different in the US because you are not obligated to register to vote.

 

[RDKirk]

Guns are not violent. It will take a Constitutional amendment to take away the right to own a gun. I suggest Democrats make that part of their party platform and see if they can sell the idea to the American people. That issue has nothing to do with registering to vote.

I'd point out, though, that if the Democrats proposed that a person could only buy a gun if they had a passport, gun owners would howl bloody murder...and justifiably so. The right to vote should not require any more expensive or difficult-to-procure documentation than the right to own a firearm.

 

[RDKirk]

Voting isn't a constitutional right either. The Constitution does give a few rules for depriving someone of the vote (you cannot deny someone's right to vote based on race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or (if someone is 18 or older) age), but beyond that there is no inherent right to vote.

Please.

Try telling gun owners that owning a gun is not a Constitution right because there are laws that prevent certain persons from owning them.

 

[JSRG]

Please.

Try telling gun owners that owning a gun is not a Constitution right because there are laws that prevent certain persons from owning them.

What does this have to do with my post?

 

[RileyG]

Please.

Try telling gun owners that owning a gun is not a Constitution right because there are laws that prevent certain persons from owning them.

Has anyone said otherwise?

 

[Valletta]

I'd point out, though, that if the Democrats proposed that a person could only buy a gun if they had a passport, gun owners would howl bloody murder...and justifiably so. The right to vote should not require any more documentation than the right to own a firearm.

Again, there is no requirement for a passport. And the Act does not apply to when you vote, it applies to when you register to vote. Remember the Democrat hoax that blacks did not have ID? And then remember when so many blacks came forward and said that was ridiculous.? I mean if the Democrats could have scoured the country and found a hundred people who were denied the right to vote because they had no ID they could have got some real attention. It's a fake issue.

 

[Fantine]

There is not currently and "ID" that proves citizenship, except a passport. A birth certificate alone wouldn't be enough...that would require the birth certificate and an ID. The only single document that proves the person standing before you is a citizen is a passport.

Which means the "right" to vote has a price tag.

And we have a president who spent 8 years denying Obama's American birth. The whole idea was preposterous.
Obama's father, a graduate student in economics, had a wife and children in Africa, where polygamy was legal. He knew his American wife would not understand. He didn't want her anywhere near Kenya.
As we all know, he continued to broadcast this lie long after the truth was out.
But the problem is this: to a president who believes he is the ultimate authority, truth is just a distraction.