Voter Fraud - Voter ID - REAL ID

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... And would o' been a BIGGER Landslide with Voter ID...

... "Voter ID is GOOD for Thee!" ...

Why don't the Democrats fancy it?? ...

#### Salty

less than half of people....yes that distinction IS important.

I'm in TX...we have voter id at the polls...

btw...Georgia law requires photo identification when voting.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by RX792P

I'm in TX...we have voter id at the polls...

btw...Georgia law requires photo identification when voting.

so am i. and the ID Texas requires .. your driver's license (or state id) .. has a photo.



so Texas and Georgia both require a valid PHOTO ID


why the uproar in other states to do the same?



the founding fathers did not set up a democracy. they set up a federal republic and gave a large amount of autonomy to the states. including how they handle voting. now you have states where there is little to no validation of legal registered voters.



that's a flaw that the founding fathers didn't/couldn't foresee. that needs to change or confidence in voting will continue to be an issue.

[RX792P]

Georgia is the nexus of claims of voter fraud/whatever right now.
Yet it requires photo id when voting.

Kinda defeats the logic, doesn't it?

As I've said, I'm not opposed to voter ID. But the SAVE act does little to make any difference...it's a solution without a problem.

[ICU 812]

Just knowing who someone actually IS must be the first step in determining their status as one who is or is not entitled to the right to vote.

[RX792P]

Rep. Chip Roy equates health care fraud in Minnesota to voter fraud and lack of voter ID...bit of a stretch don't you think
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026...-save-america/

“Well, Laura, great to be on the show. And look, they’re only threat to our election. Like, all this, you know, people that are in a tizzy about President Trump. The only threat to elections are the people who are here, who will steal our elections by voting without voter ID.”

“Like, all of the fraud that we’re seeing in Minneapolis, right?” he continued. “All of that fraud. That’s just the tip of the iceberg of the kinds of things we’re seeing across the country. They can do that there with child care facilities, then what do you think they’re doing with ballots? What do you think they’re doing in the voting process? We know they are engaging in this on purpose. There’s a reason Democrats are all concerned about this. Why would they be concerned about ICE being near voting locations? Because they don’t want enforcement of the law there.”

“So, enter the SAVE Act, which I introduced two years ago,” Roy added. “Mike Lee introduced this in the Senate, which as you know, ensures that you have voter identification, i.e., you have to prove your citizenship to register, and we clean up the rolls. Because right now people don’t understand. Arizona has two sets of systems for their voting because they’re not allowed under federal law to require proof of citizenship and voter ID for federal elections. They’re not allowed to do it. So, they do it for their state elections, but not federal. I’m running for attorney general. I want to be able to enforce the law in Texas. Current federal law doesn’t allow us to do it. The SAVE Act would fix that.

Fix what?
After running the entire Texas voter list with more than 18 million voters through the SAVE database, the SOS has identified 2,724 potential noncitizens who are registered to vote in Texas.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office said it had not initially checked the list of 2,724 potential noncitizens flagged by the federal database against DPS records.
Note "potential"...
0.0151333333%
Results of review of the 2724 seem to be sparse, but confirm there are at least 33 U.S. citizens on the list...raising questions about the accuracy of the SAVE database.

[Yssup Rider]

I think this is the trend nationwide.

Widespread election exists in America … in the minds of the MAGA.

[RX792P]

and yet more misinformation...
[URL="https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/addison-mcdowell-save-act-democrats/2026/02/04/id/1244816/"]https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-

Rep. Addison McDowell:

McDowell then tied immigration enforcement to election security, spotlighting the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

"I'm a co-sponsor of the SAVE Act. We have to get it done."

McDowell aimed his criticism at House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., saying he "cannot imagine" why the Democrat leader "doesn't want voter ID" and "doesn't want to kick illegals off of our voter rolls."

EXCEPT...
The SAVE act does NOT "kick illegals off our voter rolls".
The SAVE act only affects future voter registrations, requiring new registrants to provide proof of US citizenship, it does not call for or require any review/actions regarding current voter rolls.

If act sponsors are so serious about "kicking illegals off our voter rolls" why does the SAVE act not mandate reregistration with proof of citizenship?
It's only around 174 million.

[ICU 812]

Whatever the election process evolves into, the USA should be an international exemplar of how to conduct a fair election.

I am in favor of paper ballots.

I am in favor of voting in person.

I support absentee balloting in the most restricted way.

I am in favor of positive voter ID at the poling place.

If any of this requires a Constitutional Amendment . . .then let's get to hit.

If someone is having a hard time establishing a solid ID, there is still way more than a year to get it done before 2028.

For help, call the county headquarters of the party of your choice. I am confident they will find someone to help you.

[ICU 812]

The Constitution leaves it up to each State to conduct elections.

However it is my belief that we can move towards a more uniform process without violating the guard rails of the Constitution.

I strongly believe that each political party should be able to select their candidate(s) as they see fit. Somehow, California election laws are structured to keep minority party candidates completely off the ballot on Election Day. Doesn't seem right to me. Don't know if that has been effectively challenged.

The Caucus process for candidate selection exists nowhere else but Iowa . . .and confuses non Iowas. That tradition fell apart the last time with no Democratic candidate selected and the results still unknown. Maybe that needs some adjustment.

Perhaps A federal statute law could merely require all states and parties to hold their primaries on the same date. That would be a start.

Things could be done without violating the State's right to conduct elections.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

how about mandatory voting? like Obama wanted?

That's a ridiculous idea. Why would you want poorly informed people or people who don't care voting? When I don't know anything about the candidates or the issue, I don't vote.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by Tiny

That's a ridiculous idea. Why would you want poorly informed people or people who don't care voting? When I don't know anything about the candidates or the issue, I don't vote.

Is this why?
"We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."

I am of the opinion 'if you don't vote, don't bitch'


Here's an idea.
All ballots must contain a "none of the above' selection in addition to the candidates. If "none of the above' collects the largest number of votes, the existing candidates are removed from the election and new candidates must be brought forward.

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by Tiny

That's a ridiculous idea. Why would you want poorly informed people or people who don't care voting? When I don't know anything about the candidates or the issue, I don't vote.

Not to be crass, but have you seen interviews with people who currently vote? When asked about policies and why they're voting the way they do, they don't give an intelligent answer.

I think many people skipped the last election because they didn't like either candidate. Even the Pope chimed in last time, though Popes generally stay out politics. "Vote the lesser evil."

If everyone is required to vote I think the odds are better that they'll look further into the issues. Because of Citizen's United, virtually an unlimited amount of money can be spent on elections. Parties would have to chase all people, not just some. The messages would get out.

Australia's has had mandatory voting for 100 years and they are doing fine. They got their participation rate up to 91% in 1925 and apparently it's stayed there.

"That’s one of the things we find shocking when we look at America, what looks to us like voter suppression.

Every now and again, the idea that we have to provide ID when we vote gets raised—and it never gets anywhere. You don’t have to provide ID when you vote; you just turn up, give your name and address, and get given a ballot paper. There’s very little, almost no evidence of voter fraud, so when it comes up, people say this is a solution in search of a problem."

https://boltsmag.org/compulsory-voti...alia-election/

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by Tiny

So you agree, REAL ID isn't being used to disenfranchise voters? It sounds like what Raffensperger said doesn't make sense.

REAL ID potentially disenfranchises voters because unless it's paid for by the government and easily obtained, a barrier exists to some people. This argument seems to be easily blown off, but we have no idea how many people don't vote because they can't afford government IDs or can't get to a place to obtain government IDs. Regardless, it's probably a poll tax.

The SAVE Act just adds more complexity to potential disenfranchisement. A government ID would be used as one form of documentation to register to vote, but it would just prove your identity. The other piece needed would be a birth certificate or something to prove US citizenship. Speaking from experience, not everyone has their birth certificate. That's another potential barrier.

The SAVE Act requires re-registration when someone moves or updates any voter information. This is when non-citizens who are registered to vote would be required to prove citizenship, but that's already been shown to be a non-issue, if not a red herring. I'm repeating what I wrote in another reply, but a bigger issue is married women who took their husbands' name. They won't have ID that matches their birth certificates. Another potential barrier.

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so am i. and the ID Texas requires .. your driver's license (or state id) .. has a photo.



so Texas and Georgia both require a valid PHOTO ID


why the uproar in other states to do the same?



the founding fathers did not set up a democracy. they set up a federal republic and gave a large amount of autonomy to the states. including how they handle voting. now you have states where there is little to no validation of legal registered voters.



that's a flaw that the founding fathers didn't/couldn't foresee. that needs to change or confidence in voting will continue to be an issue.

Texas has exemptions from photo ID requirements, such as disability exemptions and religious exemptions. Do we keep the exemptions?

As far as the states that have little to no validation, I don't remember hearing about a serious lack of confidence in voting until the accusations of a rigged election in 2020. I know there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, but I don't remember problems with voting fraud.

Voting when you are not authorized is illegal. The states that don't require documentation don't seem to have a problem with fraud, so I can see the argument for not introducing any barriers to voting.

[RX792P]

The Bolts article makes some good points re compulsory voting.