The government's fiscal year ends on September 30, which means FY25 begins on October 1. That's three weeks away.
Naturally we need a federal budget in place by then, but that's a laughable impossibility with Republicans in charge of the House. The best we can hope for is a continuing resolution to keep the lights on for six months while we wrangle over an actual budget.
Of course—did I mention that Republicans control the House?—there's a catch: Speaker Mike Johnson insists he won't pass even a CR unless Democrats agree to pass the SAVE Act along with it. This is a "statement" piece of legislation that would require proof of citizenship before you can register to vote.
The SAVE Act probably wouldn't actually affect voter registration much, but what a pain in the ass. I, of course, would just show my passport and be on my way. But lots of people don't have passports. Nor do they have an official, stamped birth certificate, so they'll have to track one down. And for what?
The argument is simple. Democrats say there's virtually no noncitizen registration, so why bother fixing a problem that doesn't exist? Republicans say: maybe so, but what's the harm of requiring proof of citizenship?
Meanwhile, I'd like to remind both sides that if they're actually serious there's an easy solution: free national ID cards. You'd have to show your ID to register, so Republicans get what they want. However, acquiring ID is free and easy, so Democrats get what they want.
Outside of the UK and its former colonies, virtually every country in the world offers free identity cards to its residents. Some are compulsory and some aren't, but everybody gets one regardless because they're really convenient. The US already has such a card (the passport card), so that part is done. All that's left is to make it free and urge everybody to get one. What's not to like?
Do you have to have a passport in order to get a Passport Card?
If YES
then no gain, else
If NO
then how does the Passport Card protect election integrity
any better than my Food Lion Frequent Shopper card?
Presumably you would get a passport card by sending in your birth certificate to the State Department, as one would have to do now to obtain a passport.
Technically you don't but it's the same application. You have checkboxes for passport book, card, or both. And have to pay differently for each.
I think the crux of Kevin's suggestion is making the card FREE, which removes *one* barrier to getting one. The remaining one of course is that it still takes time and effort to do it which might not be worth it if you don't otherwise need a passport.
The application process is nearly the same to get either. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/card.html
Do you have to have a passport in order to get a Passport Card?
Kevin is showing us the passport card to demonstrate what the free national ID would look like. He doesn't state here that he believes the process should be exactly like the current M.O. to obtain a passport.
I would suggest that, if we were going to go this route, the best method would be for the federal government to rely on the states to submit driver's license records/photos electronically to federal authorities, who could then harvest this data to provide the free IDs. No, this wouldn't cover every citizen—but it would cover the bulk of the population.
For those without state IDs, Washington could outsource the applications and photo-taking to state DMVs. They already have the infrastructure in place, why recreate the wheel?
I personally think Kevin's idea makes a lot of sense. I also think it's unfortunately in the realm of political fantasy for the foreseeable future.
However: I'm dead set against using it as a federal voting requirement unless we set up a system with an acceptable work around for people who have lost or misplaced their cards: these things can happen, and no American should be denied the right to vote because the day their wallet was stolen coincided with the first Tuesday in November.
"Meanwhile, I'd like to remind both sides.."
What is the point of reminding Republicans about a solution?
They are looking for problems (to use for election propaganda), not for solutions.
The only solutions they actually want is tax reductions and eliminating regulations.
They are looking for problems (to use for election propaganda), not for solutions.
Yeah, Kevin goes off the deep end a bit when he writes this:
Emphasis mine. No, Kevin, Republicans do not say this, or anything else of good faith when it comes to elections, voting fraud, etc. They engage only in agitprop on this topic, and they do so for the purposes of reinforcing their efforts to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters. Period.
Looks like a “WANTED” poster…
I see how you'd make it free, but how do you make it easy?
As you say, "lots of people don't have passports. Nor do they have an official, stamped birth certificate". So, how would they get their free passport card? Current process requires proof of citizenship which right now in most cases means one of those two.
As so often, graph man makes a problem technocratic rather than political, where the only objection to not just his plan, but to the GOP initiative itself, is "bother," as if this the Democrats were offering a bill to help people fold their linens more neatly or to outlaw mosquietos in July.
The argument is over whether we exclude as many of "those people" as we can, and that's that. Those are also people who may avoid what contact they can with government from legitimate fears or because "inconvience" itself could mean taking time off from work and losing pay. And those also just happen to be people who vote for the Democrat.
‘The argument is over whether we exclude as many of "those people" as we can“
But does it actually do that? It seems to me that the people most likely to have “proof of citizenship” handy are people who travel often, younger people, and naturalized citizens. Older people, who don’t travel out of the country and vote Republican, would be more likely to have misplaced their birth certificates and would have the most problem getting proof of citizenship, I would think. Also unless very politically motivated, they’d be the least inclined to go to the trouble.
Kevin really should have included a snark tag on this one. Thank's, Poe!
My unscientific impression is that the stories I read about people having difficulty producing acceptable voter ID are almost always about older people. Of course, this may be because stories about 93 year old women being denied a vote get more clicks that stories about 33 year olds being denied a vote, and not because there are more 93 year olds having difficulties.
You can always print your own birth certificate like Obama did...
Technically No. The passport office has ways to verify US citizenship when a birth certificate is unavailable. Though yes, those take a good deal more time.
Is there some reason to think that “proof of citizenship” couldn’t be forged? If it could be, is there some reason to think Trumpians won’t whine when they still lose and invent conspiracy theories about “Democrat counterfeit operations” keeping them from their rightful victories?
There is no way that the Trumpian Party will ever accept defeat. There will always be some excuse that the other side cheated (while they do everything they can to find new ways for themselves to cheat).
Let's see...when I moved back to Portland a dozen years ago, I was browsing books at a book sale event, when I was accosted by a cute young volunteer who registered me to vote. I filled out a short form. There was no passport or anything involved. Presumably, somewhere in the bowels of the election office they verified that I was a citizen. In any case, there was a very stern warning on the registration.
If I had to haul my ass and my passport somewhere to register...I would've done it eventually, I guess. I can always take a few hours off from work, so it's not that big of a deal. Not everyone is privileged to have my flexible schedule. This is clearly intended to suppress participation.
The whole idea that non-citizens, particularly those who lack documentation to be in this country at all, vote in any appreciable numbers is absurd. There's nothing to gain by voting and lots to lose. An individual's vote is worthless. Voting is a societal imperative, but it's not an individual one.
Donald Trump:
“The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox & Friends."
Then of course there's this...
“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist, said in 1980. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
This isn't about election integrity, it was never about that. It's about voter suppression.
I believe that Mitch McConnell also responded to an initiative to encourage voter registration by calling it the Democratic Politicians Protection Act. He's well aware that making it easier to vote gives an advantage to the democrats.
Universal vote by mail. Problem solved. What's not to like?
Non-citizens dont have addresses or receive mail?
Non-citizens enjoy mail service. Presumably we wouldn't send ballots to them.
Because in certain states, like Texas or Florida, the places where the state would designate for such IDs are long distances away, only open for limited windows, and require extensive/excessive documentation if not obtained in person...for Democratic areas. None in inner Houston or DFW areas but plenty in suburbs/exurbs, for example. Maybe 12 in Lubbock, and the closest location for El Paso would be...Amarillo (6 hours away).
California motor-voter only sends out registration if you finish the secure-id part now.
Similar to many on this thread I hold a US passport. The challenge, the US lacks an ACCURATE national database of all US citizens: the e verify database has a 4% error rate. Hard to have a national ID card without very accurate data....
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/E-Verify.pdf
But the e-verify system is also only used by a tiny fraction of out society. A national ID system used by the majority of the citizens would by its nature end up with more of the bad data weeded out.
While we are at it we should also make it valid for digitally signing documents like the Estonian National ID card that comes with an email address of the format xxxxxx@eesti.ee which is then used for all government correspondence with the citizen.
FWIW On another note. I registered to be able to use e-verify because it seemed like it would be a good way to be ensure people I hire don't create a legal risk for my business. After going through the dozen or so required online trainings I decided that the bureaucratic guardrails that had been put around it made it useless for anyone who is not a federal contractor and therefore required to use it. For example you cannot use it until the employees first day of work. Then if the verification does not pass that usually just triggers a request for more documentation. At which point there are various timers that start and are reset as needed. Only after they all expire are you supposed to fire the person. For a small business owner it makes way more sense to just accept the proof of eligibility to work if it looks like it is probably valid and then just claim you did your best if there is ever an issue.
No, Homeland Security does have data on who's a citizen due to the RealID Act, One potential problem: I'm not sure how quickly that data is updated when an immigrant is naturalized.
I'm old enough to remember when "Show us your papers" was something freedom-hating commies did.
That's an exaggeration. Cops have been entitled to demand that drivers produce drivers' licences since before you were born.
"Show us your papers" was something freedom-hating commies did.
Really? Seems to me good capitalists like mortgage bankers have long required verification of identify. Same thing when you rent an apartment. Or check into a hotel. Or board a flight.
The need to prove who one is a common and universal reality in modern society. Having the government provide a truly secure way to do so free of charge would be a valuable public service—and a progressive one, too (in the economic sense).
The problem is implementing such a scheme on a national basis would require Scandinavian levels of efficiency, cleanliness and good faith on the part of our federal public sector—and (critically) the elected officials who oversee said public sector. And needless to day, it also requires widespread trust in government on the part of citizens.
None of this describes the United States of America in 2024.
In Italy, if you sign an affidavit (with the penalty of perjury) attesting to any set of facts, the government is required to accept those facts unless they can prove the contrary. The burden of proof is always on the government, never on the citizen. That’s the actual way to solve this problem.
Welcome to the new Republican party. They went from seeing communists under every bed to openly supporting a former communist turned oligarch.
The added cost to make your driver's license or state identification card REAL-ID compliant is minimal, but when I was at the DMV, there was a lady who didn't have the funds.
Everyone should have a free national ID card that identifies your status. For instance, Melania's would say "NBH" or Not Born Here. Such persons would only count as 1/2 a vote, amirite? /S
There should be mobile voter ID registration that goes out to print on-the-spot voting ID in every state. If you already have a state ID of some sort, it's an almost instantaneous process. If not, don't worry the mobile voter ID unit can look up your information and print you out a new voter ID card.
Unless whichever side (Republicans) are going to make this a necessary corollary to whatever bullshit they are trying to pass this week, then it should be dead on arrival.
Either they are in favor of citizens voting and want to protect citizens' rights, or they are trying to ratfuck the people they believe won't vote for them. Full stop.
"Either they are ..."
It is neither. It is a mix of election propaganda and giving Trump excuses for a full-blown coup.
That's the "they are trying to ratfuck the people they believe won't vote for them" part.
Sure, it's good propaganda for a coup, but the long game is disenfranchising as many people as they can just in case they lose this one and can't stick the coup-landing.
The new driver's licenses/state ID's (Real ID) should work too...
Of course this is just an effort to stop college kids from voting.
For those interested in agenuine effort to improve election security:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2722
The nutbar right is TERRIFIED of a national ID card. Because just imagine!
* The government would know where you live -- which of course they already do, and where you work and how much money you make and all kinds of other things
* Cops could start saying "papers please" just like in Nazi Germany -- which of course they also already do all the time
Also, if there were a national ID card, the Republicans would lose the issue. They don't care about "election integrity." They just want to exercise more control over who is allowed to vote.
I like the idea of a national ID card -- the differing standards by different states is stupid. But it only works if it's free and extremely easy to get, and even then I'd want to make sure it's not too burdensome on our more vulnerable citizens.
You have a RIGHT to vote, so the hurdles should be as painless and minimal as possible.
The only point of this voter ID business is to make the Democrats look like their gaming the system with illegal voters and rile the base up. They know perfectly well that this isn't really a problem, but if you turn it into a problem it has great traction.
Oh, and that part about it suppressing votes from poor people.
If one does not have a passport or birth certificate how is getting this national id any easier?
Putting aside the lack of need for this, if a National ID were to be implemented it should be applied to every person as to not inconvenience just a certain number of people that currently don't have one. Making it harder just for some is the precise goal of Republicans.
Mexico implemented one in the 90s, and here are some of the things they did to get the system going:
1. National ID is mandatory for everyone, so everyone had to get one
2. It would be used not just for voting but as the official ID for all sort of processes like opening a bank account. Driver licenses (which are State dependent) were no longer valid for this
3. Completely free
4. An entire Presidential cycle (six years) before its use became mandatory
5. Mass opening of locations to get one, with multiple locations per town/city and at least one even in extremely remote ones, including mobile centers for some low population areas
6. Massive media campaign for the entire time reminding people about getting one, and explaining the steps to get one
Somehow I doubt Republicans would agree to something similar because their goal is not election integrity, but making harder to vote for groups that typically support Democrats.
This. Is. A. Moving. Target.
GOP. Claims. Are. Not. Good-faith. Claims.
You know this, Kevin, and I think you're just yanking everybody's chain here. As many other posts point out, the R party wants to prevent people from registering or voting or both if they're even slightly more likely to vote D. Proof of citizenship is just the latest buzz phrase, the current tool, for blocking people.
Others are the Texas raids on LULAC. And Desantis's highly publicized arrests of people for illegal voting. And current purges of voter rolls in several states that strike off tons of legal voters and give them no time to re-register before November.
This is one of very few things the Rs are creative about, because it's one of the very few things the Rs really care about. In most other things they say, the safe adage is the one that says every accusation is a confession, and the reason that works is they don't care enough about what they say to bother getting creative.
Preventing people who are more likely than not to vote against them, from registering and then voting, is something they really, deeply care about. And, as you well know, they'd care about it just as much the day after everyone in the country had a genuine, cheat-proof, government-issued, free proof of citizenship as they do right now. And they'd be just as hot to keep people from voting as they are now.
In other words, they get to move the goal posts, not us-- that's just how it is, I don't make the rules. And they will move on to some other means even if you could give them everything they say they want on this one.
A safe rule of thumb about Rs is that they have to show you through their actions that they're operating in good faith. Otherwise they're not. End of story.
This is a stupid reason to advocate for everyone to have a passport. There's no good reason to put any kind of brakes on the process of registering to vote. A case could be made for flashing an ID card when you actually vote - *if* everybody had ID cards that were free and easy to get - but there's *no* case for needing to show ID before you're even allowed to *register*.
However, that said, everybody having a passport is a good idea, I'm on board with that.
Passports (both formats) should be free, the first one should arrive with your birth certificate, and it should be free and simple to keep it up to date thereafter. Like, new passport photos ought to be included on every school picture day.
A person who has no passport is literally less free than a person who has one. If you can afford the fees, and you don't have one yourself - or you're a parent and your kids don't have them - I strongly advise it.
Honestly, I think the way to solve this is to insist that the government bears the costs. I mean, Republicans are always the ones whining about "who's going to pay for it?"
Are they going to argue that "we can't afford it!" If not, then it can't be all that important to you, right?
Of course, the SAVE act as written is probably a horrorshow, which will allow lots of demogoguery (is that a word?)
In America, we can make up any word we want.
Why can't I use my "real id" as a national identity card?
FREE is part of the answer
To be a complete answer it should also be AUTOMATIC
Here (NZ) we have an organisation that is tasked with ensuring everybody that is eligible (here that is all legally present adults) is on the register
How do you handle people whose IDs were recently lost, stolen or destroyed? People who recently moved? People whose name recently changed due to marriage or other reasons? People with unstable housing situations and no fixed address? College students or other people who are moving frequently? US citizens abroad, military or civilian?
A free ID doesn’t resolve any of these issues.
What's not to like? It doesn't suppress the vote, that's what. For whatever reason, Republicans fervently believe that the fewer people allowed to vote the higher the percentage of them that will be Republicans. I personally think that Republicans are well on the way to joining the Whigs in obscurity.