Voter ID could be headed to the California ballot. Opponents plan to make it about Trump
By Nadia Lathan, CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Not long after Steve Clarke found out there was a push to require voter ID at the polls, he began canvassing for signatures in Sacramento.
Many of the residents he encountered were angry, Clarke said. He began volunteering for Reform California, the group behind the initiative, last year after feeling frustrated with homelessness and the cost of living. “They want the same things: Integrity back in our elections.”
Clarke and his wife are among the thousands of activists pushing for a Republican-backed voter ID ballot initiative that supporters are working to put on the November ballot. Organizers last week said they’ve submitted more than the nearly 875,000 signatures required to qualify the measure — 1.3 million in all. As officials work to verify the signatures, opponents are organizing a campaign built around President Donald Trump and his push for a similar nationwide proof-of-citizenship voter requirement.
Voting rights groups say voter ID laws unfairly disadvantage poor people and Black and Latino voters who are less likely to have official identification, and that creating more requirements is a way to make it harder for people who typically support Democrats to vote. They also point to the history of poll taxes, a fee that Southern states used to prevent Black and poor white Americans from voting after the Reconstruction era.
Recent polling has found popular support for some voter ID laws nationwide and in California. A 2025 poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies showed a majority of Californians surveyed support voter ID at the polls — 54% overall approved of showing proof of citizenship each time a vote is cast.
The poll numbers underscore the need for the initiative, supporters say.
“We’ve structured this initiative based on what voters across the political spectrum would want,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego who is leading the initiative.
Under the proposal, mail-in voters would be required to provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID, such as a driver’s license number. The initiative would also require the secretary of state and county election offices to verify voters’ registration for each ballot cast.
Currently, voters are only required to provide an ID and Social Security number when they register to vote, but not when they cast a ballot. Most states, however, require or recommend that voters present an ID when voting, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, though only 10 states are considered strict about it.
Experts agree that voting fraud is rare. A 2021 investigation by The Associated Press found fewer than 475 potential cases of voter fraud out of 25.5 million ballots cast in six battleground states in the 2020 presidential election, after Trump touted false claims that the election was stolen.
Opponents of the proposed initiative have stressed the rarity of voter fraud.
“California elections are already incredibly secure,” League of Women Voters of California Executive Director Jenny Farrell said. “There is no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting that would justify adding these strict requirements.”
Voting rights groups also claim the initiative would pose needless barriers and suppress voter turnout. League of Women Voters and other organizations plan to form a campaign committee to oppose the initiative.
Labor gears up for voter ID fight
Another potential opponent is organized labor, which is expected to campaign heavily against the initiative. That messaging will also likely focus on Trump’s support for similar legislation currently stalled in Congress that would require voter ID in federal elections.
California Labor Federation President Lorena Gonzalez told CalMatters that unions will argue the measure is unnecessary. “The California GOP in this situation are just taking Trump talking points,” she said. “I assume that it will be very clear that it’s a Trump fantasy.”
Popular support for some new voter requirements could complicate Democrats’ response to the California measure, said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic assemblymember who authored a failed ballot initiative on homelessness. He said messaging that’s centered on Trump, rather than voter suppression, would likely play better with voters.
“There’s always going to be that inconvenience of somebody, but I don’t know if that will be enough in the minds of voters to counter the positive messaging on this,” Gatto said.
Gonzalez said she could not say how much unions will spend campaigning against the initiative. “It’s hard to tell, because we don’t know what the initiative will look like. But again, this is a priority for us,” Gonzalez said.
A separate union-supported ballot initiative that seeks to tax the state’s billionaires could make it difficult for labor unions to prioritize a campaign against a voter ID initiative.
If voters were to approve it, California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the new voter ID requirements would cost the state and local governments tens of millions of dollars to implement.
Initiative supporters started gathering signatures in September and have raised $10 million from wealthy and small-dollar donors, according to DeMaio. It’s primarily been funded by Julie Luckey, who chairs the initiative committee and is the mother of tech billionaire Palmer Luckey. The committee, Californians for Voter ID, raised $8.8 million in 2025. The committee worked with DeMaio’s political organization, Reform California, one of the state’s biggest grassroots fundraising groups for conservative causes.
Last year, DeMaio unsuccessfully introduced a bill proposing similar voter requirements but it had little chance of success in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
In general, it’s much harder, and more expensive, to pass an initiative than to defeat one in California. Since 1912, voters approved just 35.5% of ballot initiatives, according to the secretary of state’s office.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
The headline may have just as well been:
“Opponents of the opponents plan to make it about Trump”
I totally agree…Let’s make it about Trump.
During his March 9 speech to Republicans Trump said this. Somehow this has to do with the SAVE Act in his addled brain. What’s really disturbing is his “your daughter” comment. His mental condition is worsening.
During the speech he said:
“…let’s not just get one like voter ID, but you know it can be given to you by your daughter… your daughter, she has to be of age, like above 6 years old…”
https://www.reddit.com/r/AntiTrumpAlliance/comments/1rpfw46/trump_on_voter_id_your_daughter_she_has_to_be_of/
But their cult daddy says voter fraud is a problem, why else did he lose the 2020 election?
Your post discredits you. Is this the bar you set?
I think someone higher up the command chain set it themselves.
Or!
Mexico and all of S. America require voter ID, Canada requires it, Africa requires it, all but a small portion of Europe do as well(somewhere in Great Britain, I think). It is about common sense, and maybe if we require it as well we could raise the country UP to third world status, at least in this regard.
Sure buddy!
lol I’ve seen this before!
In other news about “Progressive” California – Yamaha pulls the plug and is headed to Georgia. In another “Progressive” State – Washington – Starbuck’s CEO pulls the plug over some sort of millionaire’$ tax and moves to Florida. Who needs em anyway? Guess the folks still in those States will just have to make up the difference in the tax revenue that moved. Ain’t Socialism Grand? Time to pass an “Exit Tax” to restrict Freedom.
People like this pincushion hypnotically and obediently voted for Kamala Harris for president because that’s who their undemocratic Liberal Leadership decided for them who the booger eating lemmings were going to be voting for…
Is that why federally issued voter ID has an 80% approval rating?
I find it odd that they are saying poor people have trouble with obtaining valid id’s . Is there bot requirement to have a id when signing up for government services such as welfare , or pge service or water companies and the like ? Even when signing a lease agreement a photo id is required , how then is it that it is to much to ask that people show proof that they are indeed citizens legally allowed to vote ? I personally find it absurd that we are in this day and age having to even vote on it , there is zero reasons to not require a valid id when voting
“there is zero reasons to not require a valid id when voting”
No, there are many, many reasons to not want in-person-voting with a valid I.D. and proof of citizenship. All the reasons allow a doorway to fraud or or the suspicion thereof.
Give us an election with absolutely no reason to not trust the results. One would think that would be important.
I know, it will be incredibly difficult for some people to prove that they are real Americans. Have some pride and DO IT!
Good morning Ernie!
Yes Ernie. ^^^This^^^
There is not a single cogent argument to not require voter ID that doesn;t involve defrauding the interests of the tax paying citizen.
“When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state.” -Thomas Jefferson
If there’s no verification of anything, or vote tracking at the very least, what’s to keep a county resident from voting for city council members? There isn’t. With verifications there’s no need to sell your house and move 5 blocks or start getting your mail at your buddy’s house so that you can appear to be inside the city limits and qualify to vote there. Or run for office. an ID check, something legal anyway like a residency document to look at, and a couple questions gets rid of a lot of these silly fraud accusations.
I’m less concerned with individual cases of voter fraud than I am with a push to get as many uninformed voters to polls as they can. Without an informed electorate the Republic is dead.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage”
Source unknown. Commonly attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler
Bingo. While I support stringent ID requirements as a bare minimum, the bigger problem is with who qualifies to vote. I don’t believe the founding fathers would be comfortable with the current “fog a mirror” test as the only qualification. When a Democracy has more voters taking out of the system than putting in, it is inevitably doomed.
Yes, let’s get back to voting only by land owning white males who can pass a literacy test.
That would be best.
In case you’re wondering why the modern right is losing the demographic battle, this is it. The insistence of open and unapologetic racism and sexism is really a turn off to a lot of people.
I’m also very sick of the hyper sensitive progressive language police, and I place the blame for their continued relevance squarely at the feet of people like you who consistently make comments like that.
In case you are wondering why the left couldn’t win the last election in spite of “losing the demographic battle,” it would be “blaming” based on only the outliers of society is endemic. If someone makes a racist, sexist , xenophobic comment on an issue , then the ruthless “progressive language police” pigeon hole anyone who objects for any reason into the same hole.
Why not deride the Progressives who do that as well if the goal is nuanced, reasonable, civil debate? Or why not simply tell Mr, Hogoboom that his response is as reactionary as Mr. Clark’s?
Because Mr Hogoboom is engaging in a very clear use of a common rhetorical device called sarcasm to highlight their personal problem with the systems of restricted voting being proposed in the comments they replied too.
Mr Clark, on the other hand, is engaging in plain old racism (although I’m not totally out on the idea that Mr Clark is a dedicated satire account intending to make conservative political beliefs look foolish, so maybe I’m wrong and it’s all part of some social commentary project) that is all too common in our modern politics.
I know you’re just upholding your nom de plume with your patented conservative whataboutism, but in case anyone else is curious, that’s why.
Hate to break it to you but the Democratic party only has a 1% lead in registered voters over Republicans. Independence are by far the majority now..
Thatguyinarcata, Yes, Bill made a sarcastic comment to point out where Ahuka is abjuring the point of democracy. Then Mr. Clark didn’t just make some vague objection about voting qualifications. He said returning to voting limited to land-owning white men “would be best.”
When someone openly endorses a system that excluded women and people of color, it’s not exactly shocking that others call that racist and sexist. That’s not the “language police.” That’s responding to exactly what he said.
What’s interesting to me is that some commenters who otherwise talk a lot about supporting women or civil liberties seem much more eager to criticize Bill’s sarcasm than to hold Mr. Clark accountable for actually endorsing disenfranchising women or Ahuka for advocating for voter suppression techniques such as that used during the Jim Crow era.
Right now a lot of fairly smart conservatives are twisting themselves into knots trying to avoid confronting the fact that large parts of the administration they support and the movement behind it—are openly pushing policies that undermine things many of them say they care about, like women’s rights, the Constitution, and freedom of speech.
So Hogoboom makes an outrageous statement and you assume it’s sarcasm but Clark does the samr and you assume it’s racists? Shouldn’t you at least ask first?
There has been an increasing unchecked level of personal insult towards Mr. Clark. That seems like a step in the ultimate moderation and banning process.
Mr Clark just got put on moderation for making a racist comment so I guess that answers your question.
If you are too dumb to figure out how to get a valid ID in this day and age, then you’re probably too dumb to vote.
Once again…it’s not about being too dumb, it’s about about the government making things difficult needlessly. I don’t know about you but my life is tightly scheduled and I’ve been trying to sort out my health insurance. It’s been dragging on for months. I’m spending time that could otherwise be better spent on my job or my family to deal with it. Asking busy folks to add in more to their lives is hard.
In other areas folks are (rightly) at the government for having a tangle of unneeded rules. But in this case, where there has been no known case of a fraudulent voting related to no voter ID effecting an outcome of a race, for some reason more rules to respond to a non-problem has become the answer.
?? ” about about the government making things difficult needlessly?” That seems to be the sole occupation of government and something that may take much less time once or twice a year (or once every few decades if you don’t move) then showing an id at the bank is that is a big deal? Maybe I’m unusually sensitive right now because it has taken me hours to pry some forms needed to file my taxes from the Feds. Only to check a box that it doesn’t apply and its information the feds already have. And the ridiculously simple taxes I file with the State of California takes hours just to go though checking a hundred boxes that it doesn’t apply to me. Or do I want to contribute to a few dozen causes.
Much of what this law wants to regulate are the new practices of campaigns to squeeze only specific votes supporting them. That accompanying increase in the rhetoric against enforcing immigration regulation has created this issue. And that is because there is such total disregard for much of the citizenry that started with Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” and has only become more self-tighteous. The loss of trust is equal to the loss of respect that being a citizen has come to.
The scourge is uninformed voters not voter fraud. Too many operate on the premise that everyone should vote. No. You should be critically educated and then decide if you should vote. Most are not informed and simply vote which ever direction the tide pulls them. This will not end well for anyone.
The difficulty with the idea that only “informed” people should vote is that historically that argument has always ended up being used to justify excluding people. Literacy tests, property requirements, and other filters were all defended the same way…let’s only have “qualified” voters.
The challenge then is deciding who gets to determine who is informed enough. None of us know everything about every issue on the ballot. One person may understand agriculture policy, another education, another healthcare. Democracy mostly works (in my opinion low information/emotional voters unfortunately led to a greedy billionaire with the top job) because people bring different experiences and priorities to the table, not because everyone passes some sort of civics exam controlled by whoever happens to hold power and might want to exclude some group.
Expanding the vote over time wasn’t an accident. It was recognition that government decisions affect everyone, so everyone should get a say — you know, the old “taxation without representation” beef Americans once had with Britain.
I’m glad though that we can agree that voter fraud is not a scourge.
Voter Registration wasn’t a problem, either, BUT the Democrats just had to fix that, with motor voter laws and automatic Voter Registration, which I consider to be nothing short of unlawful election meddling…
It’s pretty simple, Kym Kemp, you seem so concerned about making registering to vote too hard, so why aren’t you just as concerned by the Democrats not only making registering to vote in California TOO EASY, but also making it beyond effortless and not even of one’s own choosing, impetuous, and/or, volition, whatsoever…???
I really don’t think it’s ok for a political party to decide who will be registered and when, especially in a predominate Democrat State, like California…
The Democrat push for Nationwide Automatic Voter Registration started happening right about the time that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016, and by 2020, along with un purged voter rolls, Biden mysteriously came up with an extra 12 million votes that were unprecedented, and won against an incumbent…
I guess if your ok with the Democrat leadership controlling voter registration, and you are also ok with the Democrat leadership nullifying your primary votes, and you are also ok with the Democrat leadership actually choosing your presidential candidate for you, then it’s probably unsurprising that you would also be ok with no proof of citizenship in order to be automatically registered to vote courtesy of the Democrat leadership, regardless of the fact that the DMV isn’t even slayed to have ironed out the bugs in their automatic Voter Registration system, that have resulted in non citizens and others ineligible to vote being automatically registered to vote…
I recall numbers like 1,500 and/or 23,000, non citizens/and/or ineligible to vote, being registered to vote, from a 2018 Cal Matters automatic Voter Registration/motor voter/ article…
The push for proof of citizenship to register to vote, and voter ID to vote, is precisely a Republican effort to legitimize Democrats sloppy and problematic automatic Voter Registration system being implemented by the DMV, which sends every one of them a mail in ballot, regardless of whether or not they are actually a citizen, and or eligible to vote…
You might not see that as a problem, but that certainly doesn’t mean that the potential for one isn’t there…
If the Democrats want Automatic Voter Registration, available for every person that gets a driver’s license, even if they are in no way interested in registering to vote, then by golly, let’s require proof of citizenship, and until well after that is fully implemented, let’s also require ID to vote…
And please consider this, Kym Kemp, whatever the number it is, of potential voters that you estimate will be inappropriately DISENFRANCHISED
by requiring proof of citizenship, and voter ID, will be MORE THAN EQUALLY counteracted by the number of potential voters that have been inappropriately ENFRANCHISED by the Democrat leadership’s scheming, ELECTION MEDDLING, Automatic Voter Registration, political strategy…
First Hillary Clinton loses to Trump…
Then, Democrat leadership really leans into automatic Voter Registration and avoiding the purging of ineligible voters from the. Voting rolls, and suddenly, Biden wins in 2020…
Then ineligible voters are purged from the voter rolls, and so Democrat leadership appoints Kamala Harris as your presidential candidate FOR Y’ALL, AND THEY STILL LOSE…
WHAT’S NEXT…???
IS THE DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP GOING TO REGISTER Y’ALL FOR Y’ALL, NEUTRALIZE Y’ALLS PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTES, APPOINT Y’ALL’S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR Y’ALL, AND THEN CHECK THE CORRESPONDING BOX ON Y’ALLS BALLOT, ALSO…???
I MEAN, WE WOULDN’T WANT THEM TO BE MAKING IT TOO DAMN HARD ON Y’ALL, WOULD WE, BEING SO DARN BUSY AND ALL DOING MORE PRESSING SHIT, AND ALL…???
BECAUSE THAT SURE SEEMS LIKE THAT’S THE DIRECTION Y’ALL ARE HEADIN’, DON’T IT…???
Proof of citizenship to register to vote, and voter ID to vote, 100%
Automatic voter registration demands it, as a matter of credibility of, and trust in, our election process…
Automatic Voter Registration is relatively new and is not bug free, so let proof of citizenship to register to vote, and voter ID, balance out what is new, in order to assure ongoing legitimacy and confidence in our Democracy.
You want Automatic Voter Registration, we want proof of citizenship to register, and voter ID…
Lets compromise and meet in the middle…
You get what you want, and we get what we want…
It’s called balance.
Automatic voter registration was sold to the people ostensibly in order to enfranchise black and Latino voters…
But that didn’t happen…
And it came at a huge cost, and the bugs in the software aren’t even slated to be ironed out until 2027.
That’s why we need Proof of citizenship to register to vote, and Voter ID…
Deal with it…
And Automatic voter registration should be implemented nationwide, just the same, in each and every state, or not at all…
A mismatched patchwork of automatic Voter Registration by state, sans proof of citizenship, is fucking bullshit…
A minimal hurdle like having an ID is filter enough. Those motivated to vote will vote. It shouldn’t be frictionless… same as not everyone should drive, but if you’re motivated to do so it’s not that hard.
The challenge is that hurdles don’t just filter out the “unmotivated.” They often filter out the busiest, the poorest, and the people are already facing difficulties. Motivation doesn’t create more hours in the day or make government offices easier to get to.
Driving and voting are also different kinds of things. Driving is regulated because it can directly harm others. Voting is a fundamental right tied to representation in government. Like I pointed out above, historically, when barriers to voting were introduced as “minimal hurdles,” they often ended up excluding groups of people in ways that had little to do with motivation–unless you are talking about the motivation of folks to keep those who think differently than they do from voting.
Earlier in the thread the concern was uninformed voters, and now the idea seems to be that a little friction helps filter voters. But the difficulty with using hurdles as filters is that they rarely sort people neatly by knowledge or motivation. More often they end up sorting by time, money, and who has barriers put up to make it hard to vote.
That’s why rules that add friction to voting tend to be looked at very carefully. The right itself is considered fundamental.
Voters need not be unusually coddled…
Rules that add grease to voting, like Democrat introduced automatic voter registration, in order to net voters, need to be looked at very carefully, also…
A partisan Liberal Enfranchisement scheme, in my opinion, no less inappropriate in principle, than any scheme to disenfranchise…
There is more than one way to gain an advantage…
Disenfranchisement is one way, Partisan Enfranchisement is another…
If they are not standardized in every state nationwide, then they need to be eliminated and/or postponed entirely, and at least for federal elections, until they are standardized nationwide…
In my opinion they’re fundamentally meddling in the election process, in an inappropriate, in an unbalanced and partisan way, and were introduced while the Democrats were in power, circa 2016, around the time Hillary Clinton lost.
And since the bugs and glitches in the DMV Automatic Voter Registration software aren’t even slated to be ironed out until 2027, we need proof of citizenship, and voter ID, right away, until they are, and beyond…
I will make no excuses for myself, as far as having my necessary identification, and it’s certainly not my place to be making any excuses for anyone else, at all, either, that wants to drag their feet…
If they want to make their own excuses known, that’s one thing, but nobody should be volunteering to make excuses for them, either…
That’s just more election meddling…
Just like the way we should be voting, let’s speak only for ourselves…
Busy. (Not always poor)
Poor. (Not always busy)
Facing difficulties (Life happens)
It’s a Venn d’oh – gram! Everyday realities crammed into overlapping circles and called suppression.
…
Voting is not an enumerated right. Regardless, if you really think thst exercising rights should be frictionless than you surely believe that all gun laws are infringements.
Arguably, voting has caused more harm to people than automobiles.
You appeal to edge cases. A practical government does not cater to 100% of everyone’s circumstances. Individuals are responsible for themselves, and having an ID to vote. from the states end, insures that those who vote are, in fact eligible to vote.
Driving is a privilege; voting is a right.
“Democracy mostly works (in my opinion low information/emotional voters unfortunately led to a greedy billionaire with the top job) because people bring different experiences and priorities to the table, not because everyone passes some sort of civics exam controlled by whoever happens to hold power and might want to exclude some group.”
-Kym Kemp-
_________________________________________
“Democracy mostly work[ed] (in my opinion [NOT ENOUGH] low information/emotional voters unfortunately led to a greedy billionaire with the top job) because [CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN] people bring different experiences and priorities to the table, not because everyone passes some sort of civics exam controlled by whoever happens to hold power and might want to [INCLUDE] some group, [LIKE THE DEMOCRATS DID THROUGH AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION, ETC.].”
There, fixed it…
You can associate yourself with “low information/emotional voters”, and the associated outcome of your own candidate losing as much as you wish, but please do me a favor and leave me and my winning party out of it…
Thank you…
Maybe you should come to grips with, and properly address the true caliber and emotional fuse length of your own losing party, and the shortcomings of it’s own preferred, annointed, and/or it’s primary elected yet subsequently rejected incumbent candidate…???
“They” are the ones that actually lost the election, remember…???
You don’t really believe that was because the “low information/emotional voters” were actually on the winning team, do you…???
That’s RICH…!!!
Forgive me, but that just doesn’t comport…
Badmouthing the winners, and throwing accountability to the wind, is all that is…
It could be said that the
Democrats and Kamala Harris lost, maybe more than it could be said that the Republicans and Trump won…
Don’t just lay blame on others, maybe take some credit and be at least slightly accountable…???
Deflecting from the obvious shortcomings of the Democrats in regards to Kamala Harris’s loss, by blaming the Republicans alleged shortcomings for Donald Trump’s win…???
Priceless…
Now there is a logical fallacy, if I’ve ever heard one…
Pretzel logic meets denial…
Internal bargaining…
I.E.:
“The losers won”
&
“The winners lost”
__________
Sure thing…
Pretty condescending and/or self soothing…
“Those darn emotional/ low information voters, it’s all their fault that Trump won…”
LOL…
That’s certainly true in a manner of speaking…
But it’s just not linear.
Trump won because the “low information/emotional voters” actually lost, not because they won.
Let’s not kid ourselves…
And let’s not forget what the Democrats did to facilitate what happened to GAZA and it’s people…
SMDH…
One of the issues I see with the “no substantial fraud” claim when it comes to voter ID is states like California, which are an affidavit based voter system. Meaning you don’t have to prove citizenship to register to vote, all you have to do is sign an affidavit which makes you a legal registered voter. When they look for fraud all they do is match names against the registration database, so it’s quite possible there could be tens of thousands or more of people legally registered to vote in California that aren’t actually United States citizens because all they had to do was sign an affidavit.
THC, you’re leaving out a key element, yes, those that vote legally attest to their citizenship (making any future claim that they didn’t realize the severity of what they were doing if lying) but then the elections office has access to systems to VERIFY their legal ability to vote. The elections office does the heavy lifting at the time of registration instead of putting the onus on the registrant. Saying all they had to do is sign an affidavit falsely implies by the affidavit is the only verification the California elections office requires as proof. That isn’t true. From our own elections office: “Voter applications are checked for various information including D.O.B., California ID number, partial SSN, and confirmation of U.S. citizenship. Upon being entered into the system, new voter information is passed along to the Secretary of State’s office for verification.”
I’d be curious where you get that information verified?
“any cases of illegal aliens signing voter registration affidavit in California”
Assist
There have been allegations suggesting that illegal immigrants could exploit loopholes in California’s voter registration process, allowing them to sign affidavits without proper identification. However, officials have denied these claims, stating that the system is designed to prevent such abuses and that there is no evidence of widespread illegal voting by non-citizens in the state.
Search Results
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.aol.com.icoNick Shirley alleges potential voter fraud loophol…AOLhttps://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.justice.gov.icoOffice of Public AffairsU.S. Department of Justice
“Does anybody actually cross reference and verify that everyone who signs an affidavit is illegal citizen.”
GPT-4o mini
Verification of voter registration affidavits in California primarily relies on checks conducted by state and local election officials. However, these processes can vary in strictness.
In California, the following measures are typically employed:
Verification Process
Identification Requirements: When registering to vote, individuals must provide personal information, which includes a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. If a person does not have either, they may face additional requirements.Cross-Referencing: Election officials often cross-reference the information provided with other state databases, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), to confirm identity and citizenship status.Affidavit Statements: By signing an affidavit, individuals attest to their eligibility under penalty of perjury. While it serves as a legal affirmation, it does not involve direct verification of citizenship at the time of signing.Challenges
Data Limitations: The effectiveness of cross-referencing can be limited by the availability and accuracy of data. Some individuals may lack proper documentation or may misrepresent their status without immediate detection.Allegations of Fraud: While there are instances reported in various media outlets suggesting issues with illegal voting, comprehensive, non-partisan studies indicate that instances of non-citizen voting are rare and often exaggerated.In summary, while there are measures in place to verify voter registration, gaps exist that can prevent the full verification of citizenship status at the time of affidavit signing. Efforts are ongoing to improve these processes to ensure election integrity.
“in other words there is actually no one that cross references to verify citizenship of affidavit signees”
GPT-4o mini
The verification process for voter registration in California includes some checks, but it does not involve a direct, comprehensive cross-reference specifically focused on citizenship status for everyone who signs an affidavit.
Key Points:
Identity Verification: While election officials cross-reference provided information with databases like the DMV, this primarily verifies identity rather than directly confirming citizenship.Affidavit Signing: By signing an affidavit, individuals declare that they meet the eligibility requirements, but there’s no systematic process in place that independently verifies citizenship for all registrants.Limited Resources: The process may vary in effectiveness based on available resources and the specific practices of local election offices.Overall, while there are measures to verify identity, there isn’t a rigorous, centralized system ensuring that all individuals who sign voter registration affidavits are indeed U.S. citizens.
“Yes or no”
GPT-4o mini
No.
Well…maybe the literacy part is valid. And wouldn’t some basic “reasonabilty” test be great too? I don’t mind people voting opposite me- that is our right to disagree. But to see people just blindly glomming onto one side- EITHER side- w/o thinking at all, just going lockstep with “their team” is pretty grim and scary. Democracy only works with a somewhat intelligent populace and I’m afraid we ain’t that!
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force… Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
However, what Mr. Bonhoeffer fails to take into account in that bit is that by definition, the majority is not going to be superior in intelligence. Or at least is more motivated by what exists than what is proposed. The only defense (and there is one despite what he says) against stupidity is the persistence of intelligence in persuasion. The failure of intelligence as he defines it is in actuality a normal failure of intelligence- impatience- in the oblivious of intelligence’s own lack of perfection. Which is pretty well known.
The people, including the intelligent, are easily bored by persistence so they reason that more direct action is required. And then indeed stupidity wins because the intelligence that is easily frustrated when it can’t win everything by its own announced superiority keeps trying to ratchet up the game until it causes its own due its own arrogance.
IMHO:
Lets see…
ID to get on a plane.
ID for a bank transaction.
ID for a driving a car.
ID for Dope and Booze (if young’n).
ID for crossing the border (legally).
ID to buy a gun.
ID to join a union.
ID to rent a car.
ID for… yeah… the list goes on.
ID to Vote… Radical Stuff !!! Protest !!! Un-American !!! Rump Rump Rump !!!!
Rump Rump Rump !!!!
Rump Rump Rump !!!!
Rump Rump Rump !!!!
GO FIGURE.
If an Olympic country protested loudly about having to drug test its participants for steroids, the logical conclusion would be, “oh, they’re cheating”.
Same situation here. It’s not difficult to see. But OMB syndrome (Orange Man Bad) will fool the masses.
”ID laws unfairly disadvantage poor people and Black and Latino voters” anyone who uses this line is a liar, or just stupid. They are saying poor dumb people of color are too stupid to figure out how to get ID. What an insult. And any women who gets married and changes her name? Again stupid, poor, lazy? Common man………….
.
.
What have you got to lose by having integrity at the pools?
The cheat.
“anyone who uses this line is a liar, or just stupid.” Pleece to be editing this. It should “and” not “or”.
and polls. I was thinking of corn pop! LOL!
Yes, Bozo, you CAN use your Driver’s license ID to get ALL those things you mention…
BUT, don’t you understand that you WILL NOT be able to use it to VOTE!!
BUT you will ALSO give up VOTE By Mail and will now need to Stand In Line, for perhaps HOURS, to VOTE and you will now need your PASSPORT ($165) to PROVE you ARE an American citizen to VOTE!
Your Driver’s license or State ID don’t prove you are an American citizen.
IMHO:
Let’s see…that means YOU, Bozo, will not get your Passport and therefore WILL NOT vote!
And THAT is EXACTLY what trump and his maga cult GOP want!
Your myopic vision WILL be the death of you and ALL AMERICANS!!
I have all those documents… so I get to vote?
WTF are you going on about. Why cant Bozo vote? You make no scene at all. You need to prove citizenship to register to vote.
Because if the SAVE bill is passed..
your Driver’s license or State ID is NOT adequate proof that you ARE an American citizen!!
DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND what IS in the bill??
You OBVIOUSLY haven’t read it!!
Even if you ARE registered to vote..you will STILL have to prove it with identification after you stand in line to vote!
A REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or identification card serves as proof of lawful status (legal presence) in the U.S.
Dont most people have this now?
Under the Save Act it can’t be used as proof of citizenship. What part of that are you not understanding?
New
If the Safe Act passes what forms of ID will be acceptable for voting
GPT-4o mini
Searching the web
Safe Act voting ID requirements 2026
Hide Reasoning
The SAFE Act, now being discussed in Congress, would significantly change the requirements for voting in the United States. If passed, it would necessitate that voters provide proof of citizenship and a valid photo ID to register and vote.
Acceptable Forms of IDPhoto IdentificationVoters would be required to present a government-issued photo ID, such as:
Proof of CitizenshipIn addition to photo ID, voters must provide proof of citizenship, which could include:
No it doesn’t. Heck even Federal regulations give the documents need to get a real id for those who are not citizens.
Besides this is 99% a tempest in a teapot because the issue in voting is id. The issue in registering to vote is citizenship. No one should need house prove citizenship when voting because it will have already been done at the time of rehistration.
Actually there are only six states that require proof of citizenship to register to vote..
But no one hasvto prove citizenship to vote. They have to prove citizenship to register to vote. Not the same thing. Like Gertrude’s comment about a theater performance, and gor the same reasons,
You haven’t read it either, obviously.
IMHO:
Hmmm… a few errors.
An enhanced drivers license, which is a version of the REAL ID that indicate citizenship. (Modern California Drivers License).
A valid US Passport. (Have one anyway).
An official US military identification card.
A valid government-issued photo ID card that lists citizenship status.
Any other valid government-issued photo ID card together with evidence of birth as a US citizen or naturalization, such as a US-issued birth certificate, a naturalization certificate or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA).
REAL ID and Enhanced Drivers’ License are not the same thing and California REAL ID do not indicate citizenship. Only 5 states offer EDL that indicate citizenship and they are all Canadian border states
https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they
Because the illegal Canadian lobby is much weaker than the illegal south of the border illegal lobby.
What?
Canadians are not known for protesting American immigration laws while waving the Canadian flag. So they are unlikely to be a force to protest citizenship data on a US ID. On the other hand
(The Beaver) ” Golly Wally, why do voter rights groups think minorities are too poor and disadvantaged to have and I.D.?” (Wally) ” I don’t know Beav, I just don’t know” (Ward) ” Boys, dinner!
(The Beaver) “Is it because they’re racist Wally?” lol
You’re, obviously intentionally, misrepresenting the claims made by people opposed to these laws.
Statistically, poor, rural, and black people in the US are the least likely to have a valid ID. So a law that requires an ID to vote is a law that disadvantages those groups when it comes to voting.
Interestingly, these voter ID bills never seem to include any mitigation provisions to ensure that implementation doesnt actually undermine those groups’ access to voting. Seems like a pretty simple thing to solve if the concern was actually just election result integrity.
Ummm, yeah maybe in 1946……
Maybe what in 1946?
There’s some really simple solutions to the problems raised by all of these proposed voter ID laws. For some reason, the people who are so certain that voter IDs are super duper necessary are apparently unwilling to include them.
Why? Is it all just performative? Is there goal actually something other than ensuring that only citizens are voting?
If we can’t afford to buy homes
we must just rent one.
if we can’t afford to rent one,
then we must make concessions
in other areas of our lives.
are we truly focused on the real problems
created by strangers that only benefit the
system we can’t seem to make work for
fully employed people / families.
we ain’t voting neither hard or smart
enough.
oh, the unbridgeable gap between
intelligence and wisdom
People who object are equally performative. There are always provisional ballot provisions to ensure those who vote without documentation still get to vote subject to later validation if needed.
The argument that doing almost everything these days requires id or at least some assumption that id has been obtained previously. Why would it be an argument that voting is the only exception not be valid?
I’ve stated my opinion on the matter here before, but I can restate it for you.
Voter ID is a great idea, the federal government should set out the requirements for an ID to qualify, set the date of implementation out to a future election 2 years from now to give states time to produce the IDs and distribute them, the first issuance should be free with payment for replacements in the future, and they should be accessible to people at the level of the post office for at least the initial issuance.
Proposing a complicated new ID law that is clearly confusing to people (based just on the number of it’s supposed supporters that demonstrably don’t understand it’s requirements) less than a year before the first election it would be required in, without demonstrating that the “problem” it solves even exists let alone is an emergency is the problem here.
Clearly the people who want to rush this though, like those who rushed Prop 50 through, are looking to prevent what they see as an immediate threat. Not great but then screwing with the law out of personal ideology is the way of politics these days. So not unreasonable. The fear that whatever pole of American divisiveness wins the election will force their agenda by the most unilatrral and dictatorial of Presidential EOs has amply exhibited by both Biden and Trump.
Funny thing is black and Latino Americans overwhelmingly support federally issued voter ID..
The devil is in the details. Lots of people who support voter ID don’t support specific proposals around voter ID.
Support for “Voter ID” as a theoretical concept is not the same as support for any and all Voter ID laws that come along.
So what provisions are the ones you are objecting to? The reason for the objections to this version of the law will not change in the future. People who object to them seem to object to any version.
The only real problem I see with this particular initiative is that it is so broad that it imposes costs on the state in the form of additional election activities without actually addressing even the alleged problem.
The initiative calls for the use of “government issued identification” without any further specificity. It doesn’t even specify “photo ID”.
So what are election officials supposed to do? Do they accept medical cards? Student IDs (but not from private universities)? Does a fishing license count? And what happens if (when) some poll workers accept some form or ID and others don’t?
And then the question again arises of what is prevented by a law that is this loose?
Since by the Constitution, the States have the power to choose the much of the electoral process- “The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.” But choose it they must. So the State of California has to devise it’s own “methods”. But “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. “
In this case I’m not sure a federal law can specify what is required to prove citizenship. Only that it must. It’s for California, as it is for every other state, to develop its own code to do it. So the answer to your issue is that California has to decide what officials have to accept.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/
Only the federal government can define citizenship.
But this proposal doesn’t address citizenship at all.
You might actually try reading the bill. There’s really only two requirements.
The first requirement is to prove your citizenship when you register to vote the second requirement is to provide a government issued photo ID at the polling station when you vote.
The photo ID can be any government issued photo ID including driver’s license, military ID Etc.
The main problem is right now in States like California all you have to do is sign an affidavit to register to vote, no actual proof of citizenship is required. So there may be tens of thousands possibly even millions of legal registered voters that aren’t actually United States citizens.
What bill are you talking about? I’m talking about this proposition. It does not call for photo id. It uses the phrase “government issued identification” only
Sorry I was referring to the “save America Act”
Says another white liberal, while 76% of black Americans support a federal issued voter ID
Still wondering where Biden got 12 million votes that no one has ever gotten before or after so far! Interesting to say the least!
Time to move on from that. Your boy is in office now. Enjoy it while it lasts. The next person is likely to reverse everything he did and replace entire cabinets of people. Because they can.
“Time to move on from that” is code for “nothing to see here!”
So is the term “likely”.
and there is a whole lot to see here. What have they got to hide? 12 million votes.
Please read the quote of Bonhoeffer I gave earlier. Interestingly it was used recently to describe the current Governor of California (stupid person). What makes you think the “Next” person will reverse everything? Just as “likely” that will not happen.
Voter rolls un purged combined with a Democrat Majority Congress introduced Automatic voter Registration plus a mandate to send mail-in ballots to every registered voter…
I’m still not wondering why Kamala Harris lost anyway…
Both Republican and Democratic voters in polls agree that voter ID should be implemented.
I think Gallup (take with a grain of salt) said it was 87% of US adults favor voter ID
I think if it was just using a driver’s license to vote that would be o.k. But it’s not. It’s a passport or birth certificate! How many people use a passport to do a bank transaction, get a credit card or any other in country activity that requires an ID? How many folks carry a birth certificate on them. Do you even know where your birth certificate is at?
I have a passport. Always have had passports being a pilot that worked abroad for decades. But most people do not have a passport. They are not out of country travelers. The corner Dairy Queen is about as far as most Americans travel. A vacation out of country is not likely for many reasons. Mostly they cannot afford it. It’s why Disneyland had become so popular over the recent decades. Until it became too expensive to go to. Making travel out of country cheaper to do.
In summary, this is another Trojan horse. Dressed up to appear as a gift. But in reality it is a fatal blow lying in wait. I wonder how long the wait is for a renewed passport?? Under the current administration it could take awhile. If not years.
I had to provide all those docs for my Real ID in CA. Where’s the outrage there?
Yes, and married women who take their husband’s name have a problem b/c the name they use doesn’t match their birth certificate. I need a copy of my birth certificate to get a Real ID, and that means not only paying for the copy, it means paying a notary (CA requires requests for birth certificates be notarized) and then waiting months to get the copy.
That must be why so many black women are not married but have 5 children.
Mr. Clark, that’s a racist stereotype and it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
Scoutieann was describing a real bureaucratic hurdle many married women face when their legal name doesn’t match the name on their birth certificate. Instead of addressing that point, you jumped to a trope about Black women and family structure that’s both inaccurate and irrelevant to the topic.
If you want to argue about voter ID requirements or documentation rules, stick to the policy discussion. Dragging an entire group of people into it with stereotypes doesn’t add anything useful to the conversation.
You are on moderation.
At the risk of offending you, can you please back up the claim that MC’s claim about black women and family structure is inaccurate with a source?
Even the Journal Of Blacks In Higher Education admits that’s the case…
https://jbhe.com/2024/06/census-bureau-report-finds-black-women-own-the-greatest-share-of-single-parent-family-homes/ and no shade from my end on that reality/choice. With so many dead beat do-nothing dads of every DNA iteration sometimes autonomy from the start really simplifies life.
Quick AI-enhance Google grab : “African American women have the lowest marriage rates and highest percentages of never-married individuals among major racial groups, with about 49% never married as of 2022. Black mothers are 60–65% less likely to marry the biological father after a nonmarital birth compared to White and Hispanic mothers. Key factors include economic instability, a shortage of marriageable men due to incarceration or unemployment, and a higher likelihood of being single parents.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
+5
Key Marriage Statistics for African American Women
Marriage Rates: In 2021, only 28.6% of Black women were married, compared to 52.4% of White women……etc …
And also ….true life is funny! I read both of MC’s comments as harmless hyperbolic sarcasm. I’m with yabut: ” some remarks get a free pass as sarcasm but Clark does the same and you assume it’s racist/sexist inaccurate “tropes..”
This⬆️⬆️⬆️
“I need a copy of my birth certificate to get a Real ID, and that means not only paying for the copy, ➡️it means paying a notary (CA requires requests for birth certificates be notarized)⬅️ and then waiting months to get the copy.”
-scoutieann-
___________________________________
I think that is false, misleading disinformation…
Link please, evidence please…
Please don’t dissuade other people from getting a proper ID…
…..
“In California, can notaries certify documents of public record?”
“No, California notaries generally cannot certify copies of public records, such as birth, death, or marriage certificates. They are restricted to certifying only powers of attorney and their own journal entries. Instead, for other documents, a “Copy Certification by Document Custodian” is used where the signer swears to the copy’s accuracy.
National Notary Association
National Notary Association
Key Rules for California Notaries:
Prohibited Documents:
➡️Vital records (birth/death/marriage), court documents, and publicly recordable documents cannot be certified.⬅️
Limited Exceptions:
Notaries may only certify copies of Power of Attorney and their own journal entries.
Custodian Statement:
If asked to certify a document they cannot, the signer may sign a statement declaring the copy is true, and the notary will notarize that signature (Jurat).
New 2025 Law:
A new law allows a designated, disinterested custodian of an electronic record to certify a printed copy of that record before a notary.
National Notary Association
For official copies of public records, you must contact the agency that issued them, such as the County Recorder or the state “
Oh, gosh, not trying to dissuade anybody! Just telling you my experience! Husband and I lost our birth certificates in a house fire. When he went to replace his, we were surprised that we needed to have his request to get a copy notarized. They provide a link to an online notary service so you can do the notary thing on Zoom, so it’s pretty convenient, but it does cost money.
Hmmm…
I may have misunderstood…
I see now you claim that the request for a birth certificate needs to be notarized in California, not the birth certificate itself…
My misunderstanding…
However, I don’t remember having to get anything notarized when I requested a copy my birth certificate in order to get my Real ID…
But that has been many years ago…
And I am a native Californian, but I’m not sure if that simplified the process, or if that’s why my request didn’t need to be notarized…
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but it would be still be nice if you could please provide links and/or supporting evidence/documentation of your claims…
I may have needed to get my request notarized, and done so, but it has been so long since I replaced my birth certificate, and got my Real ID, that I may have just forgotten that part…
You know it got so picky at places that issue birth certificate? Because it became so commonly used in fraud. “States differ on who is allowed to obtain an authorized copy of someone else’s birth certificate. Georgia allows access only to the immediate family and some members of the extended family. California, on the other hand, allows adoption agencies, law enforcement personnel and estate executors (among others) to obtain authorized copies.”
https://legalbeagle.com/5438920-birth-certificate-rules.html
Oh, sure! I understand. We were surprised too. You can also mail in your request for an authorized copy with a hard-copy notarized form, but there is an online option as well. My husband’s form was notarized over Zoom with a notary in New Jersey!! And it did take months to finally get the certificate. I imagine the wait will be longer now that more people are going to need their birth certificate. here’s the link: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/Pages/Vital-Records-Obtaining-Certified-Copies-of-Birth-Records.aspx
You needed it to get a name change on social security. To file taxes under a new name. To change a bank account, insurance policy or driverss license. Why is voting so much lowerba hurdle than any of those?
One could always order a copy of one’s birth certificate….. NOW.
I’d rather wait and complain later about it’s all unfair and how I’m a victim! Oh- and it’s all Trump’s fault!!
It’s not required to vote ; the documents are required to obtain a voter ID; you locate them or obtain replacements, and present them one time. Sheesh.
People don’t even know what they are complaining about. Right now it sounds like you might believe we have to carry our birth certificate, social security card divorce documents and marriage certificates around with us every voter day – that makes no sense! 😂 Use logic.. and like Ernie said have some pride! I’m ashamed at the low expectations people are willing to settle for, let’s expect better !
I for one think if your so dim that you can’t get an I.D. you really shouldn’t be deciding whos going to run the country.
I’m fine with needing a valid ID to register.How can anyone function without one?The problem is with the fact that the most untrustworthy, corrupt administration is not just asking for ID they want elimination of mail ballots etc.They are still wasting time and our money on trying to prove the 2020 election was rigged and demanding and confiscating our data.Even if the SAVE act is passed they will not be satisfied unless Republicans win. But Democratic Party should have had a campaign to get people ID’s and registered starting years ago then we would be prepared to meet this moment in a stronger position.
But…the DEM position is to blame and complain! Obviously by now. I have DEM friends in the Rock The Vote campaign- registering folks to vote at rock concerts. It’s a great idea- getting people to embrace and become part of the democratic process. They could have been also getting ahead of this thing with education about valid forms of ID to vote. I’m sure they would like to. But has the DEM party done any outreach about any of this? It seems they would rather complain and blame Trump when they should be working WITH the REPs on reaching some valid system check. Hint- MANY people registered did it with simply drivers licenses from states that are known to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. And that’s a well-know fact many don’t want to admit….
This is a solution in search of a problem. There has been almost zero fraud in voting that would be fixed with more stringent ID requirements. This proposed law will definitely reduce voting. For example, there are millions of American citizens that do not have access to their birth certificates. So republicans are okay disenfranchising millions of eligible voters to solve a problem that doesn’t exist? How about we work to make it easier to vote rather than harder?
I think many of the supporters of requiring and ID to vote simply aren’t considering the unintended consequences of doing so to solve what seems to be a non-existent problem.
First, there is no evidence of fraudulent voting on a scale large enough to affect the outcome of any recent election. Zero, zilch, nada. So the problem this initiative is attempting to solve doesn’t exist.
Second, adding a requirement to have an ID to vote means you are going to need someone to check that ID and make sure it is valid. This means you are either going to slow down voting dramatically with hours long waits to vote or you are going to need a lot more poll workers and a lot more polling places. Which is going to cost more money to run elections. A lot more.
Third, some folks are going to disenfranchised from voting by the requirement. Either because of name changes, not having the correct ID (lost wallet anyone?) or other snafus. The problem will disproportionately hit women (name changes) and urban residents of larger metropolitan areas.
That last bit is kind of the point of the exercise — it ain’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Those are specious arguments. If a person shows up with questionable ID, they still get to vote. It will just be provisional. No one is going to “check” inndetail , whatever you meant by that, every piece of ID that everyone brings. That too is a problem that doesn’t exist.
The real thing this idea solves is the distrust that both the left and right have created. Not a few on the left have insisted that illegal immigrants have as many rights citizens have , even to the point of saying they should have a vote in addition to other entitlements. What’s her face from Centro del Pueblo has announced that illegal immigrants who just appear to have genes in common with local tribes can not be required to get documentation. Totally racist and yet the Arcata left cheers her.
So why shouldn’t that relatively new insistence not lead the suspicious to try to prevent it? As it is I remember a NPR story about a campaign worker having found a group who didn’t speak English so went to their acquaintances with similar situations, she explained the issues to them, helped them fill out and sign their ballots and then brought them to a deposit to be counted. Now that is offering fraud on a mass scale that is basically unprovable. After all they were naturalized, they voted. Is someone going to go back to interview them to see whether they were misled? Doesn’t mean they weren’t. In fact being that they were informed by a campaign worker, it is likely they were not really informed about the opposition. Such tactics should be prevented.
https://cdpueblo.com/about/
Follow the money? Getting VoterID will cost everyone money. Who gets the money? There will be ongoing administrative costs. Who pays for administrative costs?
What really annoys me about this is how insulting it is to all of us who have worked the polls.
Each registered voter already provided evidence when they registered and their signature is on file. When you vote we check your name and address against the list of registered voters and we get your signature. Your vote is not counted if your signature is not on your mail in ballot, which is checked against voter rolls before the envelope is opened and the vote counted.
Aside from the extra time and cost involved, the inconvenience to the voter, the insinuation that poll workers and county election officials don’t do a good job, it feels like the Department of Redundancy Department to me.
A waste of time and dumb.
and costly.
Thank you Dot!
IDK about that. I registered five decades ago and my signature looks nothing like what it is now. Basically I remember the poll worker looking at the book of registered voters, finding my name by address and never even comparing a signature before being handed a ballot. The purpose mostly seemed to be to check if I was in the right line for my district.
In fact because my name was long, some of the letters in my name have kind of disappeared from my signature. Of course it’s been 20 years since I voted in person so maybe it’s different now. But I can’t see how asking to see an ID makes it that much slower. Certainly the doctor’s office doesn’t seem to care when they ask for my ID along with the three insurance cards I have. Even when I’ve given it to the same person a week ago.
Take a tip from postal service? USPS Electronic Signature Online™ expires after one year; must be renewed. https://reg.usps.com/entreg/assets/html/informed-delivery.html
@Dot, are past mail-in ballots kept for signature verification?
Well….I guess that if you think our electoral system is an important part of our country and you believe that it is important for yourself to vote then you will get it together to vote. And…if you don’t think it’s that important than I really would rather you didn’t vote anyways! It makes my vote that much tiny bit more valuable. Maybe this is a way to weed out the stupidest and laziest voters? I’m okay with that!
How about weeding out the stupidest and laziest politicians running for office?
No, that won’t work either.
Two books (in alphabetical order by title :)):
The Democratic Dilemma, Cambridge University Press
The Republican Dilemma, Oxford University Press