Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Stories like this probably scare some people off from electronic voting but I don't think this is that big of a deal. When we finish voting operations in my area we load the ballots up on someone's personal vehicle and they take them down, securely, to where they need to go. That vehicle could get blown up and those ballots could be gone, though I think we could still get a record of the results.

That being said for the United States, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship, and making "voting day" a paid national holiday. Not so much for technical or efficiency reasons but for social reasons. I'd argue it should be mandatory but I don't think we should force people to do anything we don't have to force them to do, and I'm not sure we want disinterested people voting anyway.

Exercising democracy, requiring people to put in a minimal amount of thought and effort goes a long way. It should be a celebratory day with cookies and apple pie and free beer for all. Not some cold, AI-riddled, stay in your house and never meet your neighbors, clicking a few buttons to accept the Terms of Democracy process.

I know there's a lot of discussion points around "efficiency" or "cost" or "accessibility" or how difficult it supposedly is to have an ID (which is weird when you look at how other countries run elections) and there are certainly things to discuss there, but by and large I think the continued digitalization and alienation of Americans is a much worse problem that can be addressed with more in-person activities and participation in society. We're losing too many touchpoints with reality.

View on HN

> That being said, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship

I think this is fine if it also then means that obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens.

This is where such arguments tend to get stuck in the US. If you require proof of citizenship, but also have places where getting to a government office to get such an ID is difficult or expensive, then you are effectively restricting voting access for citizens. A measure to place stricter qualifications on voting access needs to also carefully consider and account for providing access to all citizens.

The US is a geographically very large place with worse public transportation options compared to many other countries, and with that comes differences in economic and accessibility considerations for things like "Just go to your county's office and get a qualifying ID."

Even the poorest people have a state ID or drivers license. You cannot get most jobs without some legal ID.

In the US, a driver license isn't a proof of citizenship. Also, state IDs are not accepted by federal agencies, so it probably wouldn't work as proof of citizenship on federal elections.

Federal elections are all run by the individual states, so a state ID would be all you need.

If there is a federal law requiring proof of citizenship, as is currently being argued in Congress, a state ID would not be all you need since they are not proof of citizenship.

There really are not federal elections. We call them that, but they are state elections for federal office.

In many states these are available without proof of citizenship. When people say proof of citizenship they usually mean a passport or REALID.

Most state-issued Real IDs don't count as proof of citizenship under the SAVE Act.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/will-save-act-allo...

Under the SAVE act, you kind of have to have a passport or don't vote in some states.

Which is why I'm pretty sure it's not gonna pass. Both republicans and democrats depend heavily on mass votes from, let's just say, a lot of people who are, generally speaking, not the sort to have passports.

Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name.

Additionally, just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of government-issued photo identification, which amounts to nearly 2.6 million people.[1]

[1] https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20I...

If 10% of drivers lacked car insurance, would your solution be to remove the legal requirement to possess a valid insurance policy to operate a motor vehicle because it discriminates against the poor?

No. Because operating a motor vehicle is a very dangerous activity.

This a very is a poor analogy that you have here.

Nobody ever voted someone dangerous into power? Was voting for Hitler a harmless act?

And voter ID will fix this?

Does mandatory auto insurance prevent accidents from happening? If not, should we get rid of it?

No, but it does mitigate the damage... where are we in this analogy anymore? :laughing:

You just answered your own question. Voter ID won't solve all the problems with illegitimate votes being cast, but it will mitigate the damage.

Except that it will cause far more damage than it mitigates.

Does disenfranchising felons cause damage? What is the nature of the damage? Can it be quantified in any way?

The poor have a right to vote, while they don't have a right to operate a motor vehicle. We can debate over how disenfranchising it is to be unable to drive in the US (very), but the law makes a pretty clear distinction between these two activities.

> I think this is fine if it also then means that obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens.

I completely agree and I don't think there is a fair argument to suggest otherwise.

Right, so proposals that do not adequately address this point are not fair, and this is why the issue is so contentious in the US.

I absolutely support ID to vote provided that everyone who is eligible and wants to vote can get such an ID and vote without hassle.

I don't support most attempts to pass Voter ID laws because I am wary that they would not actually result in that outcome.

Great but history is proof that it won’t be equally accessible to everyone. There’s no evidence these laws are necessary. This juice just ain’t worth the squeeze.

Pretty much every bill that has ever been put forward for needing an ID to vote has had a provision for free IDs. That’s not where things get caught up.

Also, it’s a pretty silly thing anyways. I don’t even drink and I still need my driver’s license quite a few times every year.

Free and accessible are not the same thing. And a driver's license is not necessarily proof of citizenship.

Yep. And in fact there's been a ton of resistance for 20 years to rolling out an alternate form of driver's license which does act as proof of citizenship. See the REAL ID, which even now is only kinda a requirement to fly domestically.

.gov own court filings have argued Real ID isn't a reliable proof of citizenship and have refused to accept it as such.

  "...based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alsd.76...

I'm not sure where this idea that REAL ID is a form of citizenship came from. I am not a citizen and i was given a REAL ID just by proving my legal (non-immigrant) status.

I think a lot of people just forget that non-citizen legal residents exist.

I have a Real ID, and I supplied a proof of citizenship to get it. However, in my state, it's possible to obtain a Real ID without providing proof of citizenship, so my Real ID does not qualify as proof of citizenship. My passport is the only document I have that could function as both photo ID and proof of citizenship. Passports are not the easiest things to obtain and they are not free.

Real ID only confirms one was lawfully present in the United States when the ID was issued, it is not intended to prove citizenship.

https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs

For example, DACA recipients, temporary protected status refugees, and citizens of states in free association with the USA (Micronesia/Marshall Islands/Palau) that are in the USA are all eligible for Real ID.

Correct. My understanding of the SAVE act is that it would require an enhanced RealID drivers license to act as sole proof of citizenship, which is a type of license only issued in 5 states (all bordering Canada) that can act as proof of citizenship when driving across the US-Canada border. Even people with a valid RealID would be required to bring an additional form of ID to prove citizenship, such as a birth certificate. The fact that this is confusing to people is, in and of itself, a huge red flag for the impact this will have on voter participation.

The current bill Trump is pushing for requires "documentary proof of citizenship ", this can actually be very hard. It means an original/certified birth certificate, as well as any subsequent name changes (mostly married women).

This is completely unnecessary.

We establish citizenship, very reliably, at time of registration. This is on of the main jobs of the registrar of voters. They have plenty of time to look up the details of the person and establish citizenship (and intentionally lying in this process is a serious crime).

We then establish identity at the time of voting, again, very reliably.

Intentional voter impersonation or voting when not eligible is vanishingly rare in the US.

Some states only require a piece of mail and checking a box saying you are legally allowed to vote to register. Then when you checkin to vote the workers are not permitted to ask for ID to prove you are the person you claim to be.

At no point during that process is there presentation of proof of citizenship.

I have cousins from Cuba and Venezuela, hearing this sort of information is rather alarming to them to say the least.

Any ballots that are cast under same-day registration are cast as provisional and will go through the full verification process if the election is close enough where those ballots are necessary.

Source: actually ran a fucking election precinct. Non-citizens aren’t casting ballots illegally.

I'm not talking about same day registration. If you are on the rolls and proof of citizenship is not required to register, then how do you as a poll worker know the person on the rolls is a citizen?

You don't, but also you don't have to. Voter rolls are cross referenced with other sources of data to verify citizenship. ID is required to submit a non-provisional ballot even during early voting if you're not in your designated precinct.

Also just generally it's a severe federal crime to vote illegally, so people who are here illegally aren't out en masse publicly tying their identity to federal felonies.

Exactly, what you give them to apply is not everything they use to verify you.

They literally just charged someone in Philadelphia for illegally voting in every federal election since 2008. Non-citizen, ordered deported back in 2000 but still in the country.

There's not been a reliable audit to show the extent to which this happens (probably not enough to affect even local elections), but to say that it isn't happening is just a lie.

One of voter ID's biggest advocates, the Heritage Foundation, could only find 68 cases of non-citizens voting since 1980. Even if all of them are repeat offenders, that's a few hundred bad ballots out of billions cast. As you said, it is also possible to catch these people. Our election integrity is not threatened by non-citizen voters. It just doesn't happen on the scale that Republicans insist it must be happening, and the fact that they keep repeating it doesn't make it true, it means that they have an agenda that benefits from making you think it's true.

The Heritage Foundation's database on fraud was explicitly described as not exhaustive, but merely demonstrating that the potential (and reality) is there. It's not like they've got exhaustive access to both voter registration rolls and votes cast.

In states that bother, millions have been removed from voter rolls who weren't eligible in recent years, but the DOJ hasn't done anything with the data either.

If the Heritage Foundation's goal was to merely demonstrate the possibility of voter fraud, then they should have saved themselves the effort. Of course it's possible, and of course it happens; and when it happens, it tends to get discovered and handled. They have a much higher bar to clear to convince me that the issue warrants any greater scrutiny than it already receives.

As for the removal of millions from various voter rolls, you'll have to be more specific; most of these are administrative tasks being performed as they are meant to be performed, and very few of the millions removed are non-citizens. Most are removed because they've died, or moved, or failed to respond to inquiries, etc. Oregon, for example, recently moved to remove 800,000 voters from their rolls, but again, this was an administrative move; the voters were already marked as inactive and inactive voters in Oregon do not receive ballots. Removing them wasn't a priority, but now it is, so they're doing it. The point is that millions being removed is not really a cause for alarm or a sign of fraud; it's just a sign that you're unaware of how the system works.

Ok? And yet, they were caught. Dude's a shithead, swung zero elections, and got caught. They catch people all the time voting illegally. I would make a strong guess that they counted zero of his ballots as they were all provisional.

He should go to jail and yet his existence is not proof that there are hoards of African deportees voting in state and federal elections.

If you listen carefully to the "ballot access" side of this argument (actually informed people and politicians, not random on the internet), you will see they don't ever say it does not happen.

What they say is that it does not happen enough to plausibly come close to affecting the outcome. And this is widely supported, including by right-wing organizations (as a sibling comment observes).

As with most issues, there is a trade-off here. As you tighten controls to prevent improper voting, you prevent some people from realistically being able to vote (it's just too hard, time consuming or expensive for them to meet the documentation requirements), and discourage others. This is particularly bad for the 1-2 elections after the rule change, which most people won't know about until they show up to vote. IMO, this is really the point of the changes.

And you have to weigh that negative against the supposed benefit. But that benefit is really hard to find. It's very clear that intentional voter fraud (fraud in registration, or in-person impersonation) is extremely rare, and does not come anywhere close to affecting outcomes. It's already a crime, and we seem to be pretty good at catching it.

The other argument for a benefit is that it improves voter confidence in elections. I reject this, since the only reason the public at large has any real concerns is because of intentional misinformation by the right. You can't lie to people to convince them there is a problem, and then use that to justify your heavy handed solution.

Here's the comment I replied to:

> Source: actually ran a fucking election precinct. Non-citizens aren’t casting ballots illegally.

So, you can see people are actually claiming that it doesn't happen. Further,

> It's already a crime, and we seem to be pretty good at catching it.

How can we be good at catching it if it is too hard for our own citizens to actually get proof that they are citizens? We hear about the cases that happen, but we don't hear about the people go go undetected, because they go undetected.

In that process there's no proof, but every state manages voter roles which your provisional information will then go through a further process.

That is the documentation they ask for in the application. It's enough for them to understand who you claim to be. They then consult their own records to establish if that identity is eligible to vote. Then finally, on Election Day, you show you are that person.

At that last part, Election Day identification, is not even that important, since the same person can't vote twice. So if you impersonate another person that will be quickly detected. It's not a useful strategy to alter the outcome of an election.

Trump expects half of the US to get a passport in the next 6 months.

These kind of fundamental changes require years of preparation. Either Trump is an incompetent moron or he has ulterior motives.

He's trying to prevent poor people from voting.

Requiring poor people to pay a hefty fee, which they probably don't have, to get a passport seems a fairly competent way to go about making sure poor people don't vote to me.

If I don't want poor people voting, then attaching a fee to voting doesn't mean I'm incompetent. It means I'm smart enough to know poor people don't have money.

By the way, I think all of this is horrible. Everyone should be equal before the law and should have their vote count without having to pay for that right. I'm just pointing out that this is a really good way to eliminate the vote of the poor.

I hate that we get so caught up on applying labels to the disenfranchisement, rather than completely and forcefully rejecting any attempts to disenfranchise any voter.

In a functioning democracy, voting is sacred. It must be treated as THEE core, fundamental right of every person under its care.

To violate this sacred tenet should be immediate grounds for exile. If you can't respect the ONE CORE tenet, or are incapable of, then there is not space for you in this society.

It's an unconstitutional bill, but if all three branches of government hold it up it's going to be chaos (intentionally) come election time.

Even if the ID is nominally free, if I have to take a day off and pay for bus/train tickets to wait in line at some office, it’s not really free.

Some districts have limited DMV hours in advance of voting days.

Coincidental how these might be Democratic leaning areas in Republican states.

I don't even know why this is downvoted. Standard technique in Texas. Harris County does not have 40 DPS offices for its 5 million people. The current backlog to get a DPS drivers license appointment in Harris County is 45 days. The next available appointment in Kerrville is tomorrow. That is inequitable.

But anyway, none of that is the real core issue with the idea of voter ID. The real issue is that there are many living Americans who were born in jurisdictions that steadfastly refused to issue birth certificates to Black people.

This doesn't have to be binary... there can be multiple sources of disenfranchisement. They all add up.

That's life. Figure it out. It's really an insult to a group of people to imply that they aren't capable of being a functioning adult in society.

"Voting is only from 9-4" and you have a real job. Let's not pretend this wouldn't immediately be taken advantage of in certain places where disenfranchisement is real.

Get an absentee ballot then. And I've never seen such limited hours in my lifetime. Usually it's 6am-6pm on election day. And many places now have early voting, you have 20-30 days to find a time to go vote.

The federal government is trying to severely limit absentee voting as well.

Absentee ballots are available at the county seat from 2:00pm to 3:15pm on the second Tuesday the month except in September and October if the county has less than 5 clerks available. Clerk allocations are based on property tax (pay for what you use). Congratulations poor and minority counties now can’t access absentee ballots.

This sounds made up but limiting access to “free” services is not unheard of. This topic has been litigated to death. There are no new arguments. If you are in favor of voter ID laws you are simply ignorant.

Making things more difficult means fewer people will do it. It's foolish to insist that it's all or nothing. It's not about being capable, it's about marginal effects in large groups of people.

That's not the same as "disenfranchised" or "taking voters off the rolls," as it gets talked about (see both of the sibling comments to yours).

If they can't put up some minimal effort, what was their vote worth? I don't think the laziest folks probably vote in good policy.

Crazy people with extreme views vote in every single election. Sensible moderates with actual lives may decide that it's not worth the effort.

I'm not worried about lazy people voting. I'm worried about crazy people voting, and not having enough votes from sensible people to drown them out.

Funny, because I have the exact same thing to say to the legislators. Oh, it's too hard to get everyone voter ID? Too expensive? That's life; figure it out before passing your pointless security theater law[1]. Otherwise, we will do everything in our power to stop it.

[1] (Though mass disenfranchisement is almost certainly the actual purpose of the law, not security.)

Neither is voting free, what's the argument here?

> Neither is voting free

It's pretty free. You sit down at your table, fill out your ballot, and drop it in the mailbox. You don't even need a stamp. (In some jurisdictions.)

This like saying that because ISPs charge for access, HN could have a subscription fee. The argument is that quantity matters.

In Washington voting is free. My ballot comes in the mail, I fill it out, I drop it in the outgoing mail. It's pre-stamped. I don't mind full citizenship verification at the time of registration, as that can be done months before it's actually time to vote.

A (small) majority of states require employers to grant time off to vote and a (large) minority require that time to be paid. Although as others have noted, it is often the case that the window for voting exceeds a single shift (dependent on your area of work).

https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2024/10/time-off-to-vote-...

Seems to me that a small portion of the funds being used to fight voter ID could help such citizens get IDs.

Given how often ID is required outside of voting, it seems to me like this would be a big win for people, if getting an ID is so hard for some.

There are such efforts. It’s still a bandaid on the systemic problems.

> Pretty much every bill that has ever been put forward for needing an ID to vote has had a provision for free IDs.

Do you have a source for this because I have seen very few laws like this and runs counter to the overt intention of these laws

Look up the 25 states that already have voter ID laws, and corresponding free-id programs to avoid being considered a poll tax.

You can make it free but still require a person to travel to the county seat or some other distant location to get the ID. That requirement disproportionately hinders minority and poor voters. It’s also easy to “forget” their registrations.

While Wisconsin was debating this, they also closed a bunch of DMVs and limited hours for other ones.

The WI constitution enshrines the ability to vote. So you may think it's silly and for 99% of people it may be silly, but if anyone is prevented from voting because there's not a reasonable way for them to get a license, their rights are being infringed.

> but also have places where getting to a government office to get such an ID is difficult or expensive

Where in the US do you find it's difficult for people to get an ID? Where is it not? What percentage of the population has an ID in a place where it's difficult to get one vs somewhere it is easier?

What constitutes an ID being expensive?

Nearly every country in the world requires proof of citizenship to vote. How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem? Do you think that their democratic processes might be compromised because of it?

The person I used to stay with when I used to visit WV don't have a proof of citizenship. He doesn't know where his birth certificate is (probably with the US army if they kept track of their nurses giving birth on ex-allied territory during a war), and get by with is SSN and driver license.

How it works in my country : my electoral card is freely sent to my address when I register to my voting office. I can vote with it, or with an official ID, as long as I'm in the correct place. The only moment I need my ID is to cast a vote on behalf of someone who identified me as a 'surrogate'.

> What percentage of the population has an ID in a place where it's difficult to get one vs somewhere it is easier?

Not the OP, but except for passports (and passport cards)... there isn't really any federal-level ID in the US (and passport booklets/cards are expensive, just a bit over $100 IIRC).

The nearest equivalent in the state level are driver's licenses, which are also on the expensive side considering the ancillary costs (because it's a driver's license, not just an identification card). This is also the reason why US-centric companies like PayPal, for this exact reason, accepts a driver's license as proof of identification (obviously where not otherwise prohibited by local laws).

Some (New York for example) do have an ID (called a non-DL ID, that's how embedded driver's license is in the US), but most states do not have a per se ID.

> What constitutes an ID being expensive?

Developing countries, rather ironically, issue their IDs for free? Okay, indirectly paid by taxes, but there's no upfront cost. The above-mentioned identity documents have a clear cost attached to them.

> How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem? Do you think that their democratic processes might be compromised because of it?

Cannot talk about other countries (because there is an ID system and it's not a controversial affair to them), but instead I'll answer with a reflection of the US system.

Unfortunately, American ID politics are hard, mainly due to concerns of surveillance, but I think (only my opinion) because some of them want those historically disenfranchised (even if a fully native-born US citizen) de facto disenfranchised. This means that there is no uniform and freely-issued identification system in the US (or even a requirement to do that at the state level). Unfortunately, this... is a tough nut to crack, politically-speaking.

Note that drivers licenses wouldn't count as proof of citizenship under the SAVE act.

>but most states do not have a per se ID

Out of curiosity, do you have a source or list for this? My own home state and those around me that I've spot checked all have a state ID available as an alternative to a driver's license. My understanding was that this is the case for most states.

Unless I've misunderstood you and you meant a state ID that is completely separate from a driver's license to the point that people with a DL would have one?

> most states do not have a per se ID

I haven't researched this thoroughly, but what state will not issue an ID that is equivalent in every way to a driver's license except that it isn't a license to drive? I just checked Mississippi, Wyoming, South Dakota, and West Virginia, all of which do, so clearly being rural, poor, or both isn't enough to stop states from doing it. (The detailed politics are, as you say, a mess.)

Proof of citizenship is not the same as the driver's licenses people are issued by their state.

Not everyone has ready access to proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. It gets even more difficult if your current legal name doesn't match your birth name, e.g. if you took your husband's name.

Not every eligible voter has or needs a government issued ID. For example, retired people who don't drive. For them to get to the DMV to get an ID just to vote would be a challenge.

The US has large rural areas where government offices are hours away.

All of this adds up to significant barriers to eligible voters. There's a reason even the GOP isn't bending over backward to pass the SAVE Act.

There are rural places in the US where it is an hour + drive to whatever the equivalent of the DMV office is, with no public transit. You can find similar places in cities where people may not have a car at all, with a long walk to find such an office that is only open during narrow hours.

People in or near poverty are going to be disproportionately affected by those conditions.

And just getting to the DMV does not necessarily mean you can get an ID that counts as proof of citizenship. There is no standard federal citizen ID in the US. A basic state ID or driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Even a RealID compliant ID is not a direct proof of citizenship, so depending on how strict the voting requirements are it may not be adequate.

> Nearly every country in the world requires proof of citizenship to vote. How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem?

Most of those nations have a mandatory national ID, so everyone already has proof of citizenship. The US and UK are very much outliers in having vocal and successful resistance to the implementation of a national ID card.

It's still bizarre though how this plays out in reality.

In some places like Illinois, an ID is required to exercise the rights of people but not the rights of citizens (FOID required to bear guns, but ID not required for vote).

In places like Arizona, it's the exact opposite. You can bear or conceal guns without an ID but you need an ID to vote.

Vermont is the only state I know of with any consistency on lack of ID requirements that convey non-ID citizens to also have the right of people. You can conceal guns and vote without ID.

>Most of those nations have a mandatory national ID

And what are the fees for these IDs, something you conveniently are leaving out (hint: mostly not free)?

Perhaps those nations don't have laws against poll taxes; the US does.

> And what are the fees for these IDs, something you conveniently are leaving out (hint: mostly not free)?

Not far from free? It costs €12 to obtain a Spanish DNI, and the fee is waiver for low income, or folks with lots of kids

Until 1986[1] most Americans didn't get a Social Security Number until their first job.

In The Matrix (1999) there's a scene where Agent Smith explicitly remarks that Neo has an SSN as proof he's a law-abiding citizen in a white-collar job.

[1] when it was made a requirement to claim tax deductions for dependent children. Even today, if you don't want the tax break, you can opt out at the cost of ruining your child's life!

I was born before that and issued my SSN at birth.

The first pilot project to issue SSNs with the birth certificate automatically was in 1987. You can read the history here:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v56n1/v56n1p83.pdf

Prior to that, getting the SSN required giving your birth certificate to the government. If the family wasn't getting government benefits, many didn't bother.

> What constitutes an ID being expensive?

If you're talking about this as a requirement for voting, then anything greater than $0 is too expensive since it smells like a poll tax.

> Where in the US do you find it's difficult for people to get an ID?

Minority and poor areas.

> Where is it not?

White and affluent areas.

This isn’t hypothetical. Voter suppression is as American as apple pie.

> I think this is fine if it also then means that obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens.

This is essentially what the Supreme Court said when they upheld Indiana's Voter ID law in 2008 [1]:

> The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483. The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver’s license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana’s BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

> Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.

> The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified.

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/

Yes, but I don't think most of those IDs qualify as "proof of citizenship."

Even a RealID compliant ID is not direct proof of citizenship.

Others in the comment chain have talked about localities with very few DMV officer per capita in some districts and appointment wait times of over a month. If we are going to require such a step to be eligible to vote, we need to hold states and municipalities to a high standard of providing an adequate level of service for all citizens.

>obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens.

I do not think it is that straightforward. Making it more accessible makes it possible for people with less skin in the game able to vote. Imagine how invested someone who owns several properties and businesses in a city is and how much they care about the success of the city compared to some other person who is just renting an apartment and has not even a job in that city meaning they could move at any time. The vote of the first person is much more important than the second. Trying to make voting overly accessible may make more people from the second category start voting which could result in bad decisions being made because people can easily move away if things go wrong.

Yes I think anyone under twice charcircuits net worth is unworthy to vote and should be debarred from voting.

I'd agree in principle with your idea about proof of citizenship, but unfortunately the reality I experienced is I had a valid California driver's license with a Texas address because I had been in the military and California allowed that, but Texas changed their laws to require a Texas ID to vote, and subsequently they also closed 90% of the offices you have to go to to get an ID. Luckily, I knew about this way in advance, but it took 9 months to get an appointment, and when I got there, it required something like four different forms of proof. There were people in there who still lived with their parents who didn't have their own names on any bills bringing their parents in with them to vouch that they actually lived there, getting turned away and told to go fuck themselves. It was extremely transparent and obvious what the state was trying to do, not wanting young people and recent transplants to vote.

Please realize that Switzerland holds many votes per year. There is no big voting day where I have to go somewhere. I could go cast my ballot in person, but I can also fill out and send in my ballot in advance. That is entirely routine and part of my day like other paperwork.

The problem with e-voting is that it is much harder to validate. My paper ballot rests at a community building where it will be counted on the day of the vote. I can understand the process from start to finish in physical terms. Throw in a USB stick and anything could happen. It is possible we will never know what went wrong here.

I think a lot of what you argue might make sense for American elections where you're voting for an absolutely ridiculous number of things.

I'm not sure how it is in Switzerland, but in Canada I will vote for maybe three candidates in five years. And I don't mean three visits to the polls (though it's usually that), I mean three actual checkbox ticks for people to count. They're paper ballots and the counting is done that night. I think if we were stuck voting for like forty different races every two years it would be a very different story and a lot of what you say would resonate with me more. Except the voter registration stuff.

We're pretty flexible about registration up here and it works. My wife one year showed up with some mail that had her name/address, and me vouching for her. Though I think a lot of the luxuries of democracy are most easily enjoyed with a trusting, cooperative culture that isn't constantly wound up about being cheated by the others.

In Switzerland I voted last week for 5 election lists and 6 different topics. This happens at least 4 times a year, but I don't call it "ridiculous number of things".

For the voter that may not be a ton of work. I imagine to count all those votes you need technology and not just the election workers at each station? Here we have kept it dead simple. They’re all just hand counted over a few hours.

No, they count them by hand. Each issue/office has a separate ballot paper, so it can be done in parallel with sufficient number of counting personnel. It takes a couple of hours, sometimes more in big districts in cities but usually they are done by 6pm at the latest after starting at noon.

>> requiring proof of citizenship

Go and try to figure out how to do this from scratch. Imagine your house burned down and you need to start with "nothing".

If your parents are still alive you can use them to bootstrap the process of getting those vital documents (or if you're married that can be another semi viable path).

Pitty if you don't have those resources. Furthermore it might get complicated for any partner who adopts their other partners last name (were talking about getting the documents, before you can get some sort of verified ID).

The reality is we don't have a lot of instances of "voter fraud" committed by people who aren't citizens (see: https://www.facebook.com/Louisianasos/posts/secretary-of-sta... as an example) . And the amount of voter fraud we do have is very small (and ironically committed by citizens see https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-electio... for some examples).

> I am in favor of in-person voting

Again, the size and dispersion of the American population makes this odious. Dense urban areas will face lines (they already do) and many of them (Chicago) have moved to early voting because spreading things out over many days is just more effective. Meanwhile places like Montana (where population density is in people per square mile) make travel to a location burdensome.

I get why you feel the way you do, but the data, the reality of America, makes what you desire unnecessary and impractical. Feelings are a terrible reason to erect this barrier when it makes little sense to do so.

I would guess most people don't have a proof of citizenship handy. This would get even worse if the effort to get rid of birthright citizenship succeeds, how would you even prove you are a citizen?

This would be less of a problem if the US had some sort of national ID issued by right, but we don't, and the same people pushing for requiring ID for voting would be against creating one. They hate the idea of a national ID.

My state does all elections by mail now. How would this even work?

All this is on top of the fact that elections are run by the states, not the national government. Would such a law even be constitutional?

> My state does all elections by mail now. How would this even work?

Trump told Congress to ban most mail ballots.

> All this is on top of the fact that elections are run by the states, not the national government. Would such a law even be constitutional?

Experts said no. But this Supreme Court surprised experts before. And the constitution said Congress could decide elections of Congress. They have the power. They need an explanation enough people would accept.

It's not really up to Trump or Congress though is it?

Elections are run by the several states.

I edited my comment. But before you replied I thought. Congress can decide elections of Congress.

Ah, yeah, I see now that I've refreshed. Yes, it will get tricky with the current Supremes. Hopefully the signs we're seeing around Obstruction and Contempt in the federal courts lately indicate the _maybe_ the Judiciary is finding it's backbone.

I don't have much hope for Congress doing the same.

> Yes, it will get tricky with the current Supremes. Hopefully the signs we're seeing around Obstruction and Contempt in the federal courts lately indicate the _maybe_ the Judiciary is finding it's backbone.

How could the Supreme Court justify Congress could not decide elections of Congress?

It's unlikely that they could because of the ... well the Elections Clause other than the Senators bit I suppose.

My broader point was that the Judical Branch itself is starting to show some signs of backbone regarding the unchecked flexing going on in the Executive Branch. I was more talking about where you said:

> Experts said no. But this Supreme Court surprised experts before.

That generally, maybe, hopefully the Executive Branch will get a surprise or two as well.

I can be naively hopeful at times.

Yeah, I think most people who want proof of citizenship are forgetting that your driver's license (even your REAL ID) isn't a proof of citizenship. It's passport, certificate of naturalization, or birth certificate.

Restricting voting to people with passports and who happen to have a birth certificate handy is going to make the first election with the requirement weird as hell and probably backfire on Republicans if their goal is winning at any cost.

Requiring some form of ID that your state is willing to accept as good enough is a very different beast than proof of citizenship.

i don’t think that requiring in-person “ID”-proofed voting and removing mail-in ballots (which is the best part of voting in CA) does anything to bring people back to reality…

Even if it were a holiday, people may not be able to travel or take time off from obligations. There’s no obligation to drive 2 hours to vote, to fly back if you work in another country, or to go get a new birth certificate because Real ID doesn’t prove citizenship even though you provide citizenship documents to it when you get one…

I’ve heard of a lot of takes here about what we should do for voting to make it “more secure” but all of this is actually a solution for a problem we just don’t have.

> voting requiring proof of citizenship

Isn't this just a solution in search of a problem though? Multiple investigations have discovered absolutely minuscule amount of non-citizen voting in US elections. It's something that seems reasonable on its face but lacks any purpose and comes with an ulterior motive that it is part of the made up GOP talking points of a "stolen election" and "illegals voting".

Voter registration already requires proof of citizenship. What is the point of requiring that high bar of proof on the day of voting as well?

Why have voter registration?

In the United States at least, voter registration will include your place of residence which will place you in a specific precinct. In other words: "I am so and so, and I live here. Votes that affect this area include me, and I get a say."

When voters are voting for things, for example a tax levy to fund a new school, or for who will be their state or federal congressional representatives, it's important that the voters in that school district or in that congressional district are the ones voting for their representatives or for the bills or initiatives that affect them. This isn't quite as important for national elections, gubernatorial races, or for the senate at the federal level, but it's obviously incredibly important the more local you get.

Without voter registration, that model breaks down. Even mundane things like how much staff and equipment should be at a polling location is not easy to figure out when you don't know how many voters you'll have. If you haven't worked as a poll worker it's really enlightening to learn about how the process works and a great way to meet your neighbors.

One of the issues is that the US, unlike most of Europe, for example, doesn't require registering your address with your locality or police when you move.

How is it a high bar of proof if it is already required? Edit: and already met

It's not a requirement in most places. This would be a significant change in practice.

How many documents can be used to prove your citizenship? How many times do people have to go back to the DMV because they forgot something or another? Now imagine that everyone has one shot to get that right on voting day.

That’s not how this would work in practice. You get an id that proves citizenship once. So one day at the dmv, Not every Election Day.

I've lived in 3 states and none of them have required proof of citizenship to register to vote. You basically check a box that acknowledges that you are a US Citizen with the right to vote and that illegal registration carries penalties.

In my state it doesn’t require that. You just need someone else that’s registered the vouch for you. A registered person can vouch for up to 8 people:

https://www.sos.mn.gov/elections-voting/register-to-vote/reg...

I used to be really angry that we still vote with paper and red pencil. The Netherlands is ultra digital after all!

But then they showed how easy it is to hack and we live in a world with evil countries like the US, China and Russia who want to destroy our way of life.

> That being said, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship

The appropriate time to verify citizenship is the one that already happens: during registration. Poll workers only need to verify who you are and that you're registered.

In my experience there was no verification other than verbally verbally confirming address and name.

At https://covr.sos.ca.gov/ I have to positively state that I am a US citizen an tie my name to a driver's license or SSN. Neither driver's license nor SSN confirm that one is a citizen (I had both before naturalizing), but both of them are tied to citizenship information in some database. I know I had to attend the Social Security offices in person to provide proof of my naturalization in order to receive an SSN card without the words "valid for work only with DHS authorisation".

Instead of full e-voting I would love to see an additional scheme to a traditional paper ballot that allows for verification. Something like STAR-Vote or Scantegrity. Even if it’s flawed, it would be nice to run specifically because it doesn’t affect the elections but could produce useful insights. If it fails - nothing particularly bad happens, if it works - cool, we get extra assurances or maybe spot some fraud that we weren’t aware about.

But there seems to be either no political will, or some issues with the practical implementations. There were some municipal experiments here and there, and then just… crickets. Anyone knows what happened to those efforts?

What would constitute a "proof of citizenship"? Would a passport be enough, for example?

> That being said for the United States, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship

Why?

> I know there's a lot of discussion points around "efficiency" or "cost" or "accessibility" or how difficult it supposedly is to have an ID (which is weird when you look at how other countries run elections)

How do other countries run elections to overcome their racially motivated systemic voter suppression?

> and there are certainly things to discuss there

This is a laughable understatement.

> but by and large I think the continued digitalization and alienation of Americans is a much worse problem that can be addressed with more in-person activities and participation in society.

I think this is naive. You are attempting to force an outcome without understanding the cause. Systemic racially motivated voter suppression is an undeniable reality in American politics. Voter ID is a clear example of exactly that. It is used to disenfranchise minority voters. This is clear established fact.

There is zero evidence of any voter fraud happening that would be eliminated by additional voter ID.

This is a serious topic that requires you educate yourself on reality. I suggest you take your advice above and touch reality, you are overly digitalized if you think voter ID has any merit at all.

We should at least start with electronic voting to compare it against real voting. I know there have been more smaller local tests, but they are not comparable.

Voter ID is often touted as an important part of election security, but when you look at the threat model of elections it just doesn't do much. Think about how you would try to cheat at an election. The common methods are things like ballot stuffing, throwing out votes, discouraging people from voting, etc. Examples include spreading disinformation about what day voting is happening, seizing ballot boxes and replacing them with forged ballots that favor your candidate, or calling in bomb threats to polling places. These are not prevented by voter ID requirements.

The only thing voter ID prevents is voter impersonation. It prevents you from finding someone else's name and polling place, going there, pretending to be that person, and submitting a vote on their behalf. But that threat doesn't really scale. Even if you assume no one at the polling places notice you coming to vote over and over under different names, a single person could probably only do this a few dozen times on election day. To scale that you would need more people; and every person you add to the scheme increases the odds of someone slipping up or getting caught. But the real issue is if any of the people you are impersonating try to vote! While election officials don't record what people voted for, they do record who voted, and the ballot counting process will automatically note that people voted multiple times. So you would have to figure out some way to gather a database of a large number of people you know aren't going to vote, and get a bunch of people to turn up at a bunch of polling places under those names. It's just not practical to do, when elections are decided by thousands or tens of thousands of votes.

> how difficult it supposedly is to have an ID (which is weird when you look at how other countries run elections)

The devil is in the details. I don't trust that the groups drafting Voter ID legislation are doing so in good faith. For example, North Dakota passed a voter ID law years ago. It stated that you needed a valid state-issued ID that included a street address. Sounds fine, right? The problem is that most homes on Native American reservations don't actually have street addresses. Tribal members use P.O. boxes for mail, and that P.O. box is on their driver's licenses. This was brought up when the law was proposed, but it passed anyway. The Spirit Lake Nation and the Standing Rock Sioux tribes had to sue in federal court. They were eventually successful, but it took years, and in the meantime the 2018 midterms were held with many Native Americans literally unable to vote.

See https://www.npr.org/2020/02/14/806083852/north-dakota-and-na...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com