Voter ID Constitutional Amendment

Liberty
1

The proposal is a Constitutional Amendment requiring identification to vote, and requiring proof of citizenship. Non-citizens should certainly be treated humanely and afforded certain fundamental rights, but the right to vote is not one of them.

The 10th Amendment provides critical safeguards against federal overreach infringing the sovereignty of states. One of the implications is that the federal government cannot enforce federal law against states, which means states could ignore a federal Voter ID law and this would result in the federal government, with different tactics employed by successive administrations, offering or withholding federal funding to manipulate states into obeying or ignoring the law, which would consequently be practiced and enforced inconsistently over time.

However; the constitutional amendment process also sets a very high bar, which the states control. This, too, provides critical safeguards against federal overreach. As an amendment is part of the Constitution, it is not a federal law, but is the law of the land which neither the federal government nor any state are free to disregard.

3 Likes
2

As someone deeply invested in the integrity of our electoral process, I believe Voter ID, especially for federal elections, is an excellent concept for several compelling reasons:

First, it reinforces the principle of “one person, one vote.” By requiring identification, particularly in federal elections which have a broad impact on our nation, we ensure that each vote cast is from a legitimate, registered voter, reducing the risk of voter fraud through impersonation. This isn’t about questioning the integrity of voters but about safeguarding the system against the few who might try to manipulate it. I feel more confident in the results of our national elections knowing that every vote has been verified in this way.

Second, from my perspective, it brings a level of uniformity to the voting process. Just as we need ID to drive, fly, or open a bank account - actions that are arguably less consequential to the fabric of our democracy than voting - it only makes sense to apply the same standard to something as fundamental as electing our leaders. This uniformity can prevent confusion and discrepancies in how voting is conducted across the country, making the process more transparent and understandable to all citizens.

Third, Voter ID laws, when thoughtfully implemented for federal elections, can significantly enhance public trust. When people trust that their vote in national elections matters and that these elections are fair, they are more likely to participate. This trust is crucial for the health of our democracy. Knowing that measures are in place to verify identity can reassure voters that their voice isn’t being diluted by fraudulent votes in elections that affect federal policy and representation.

Finally, there’s an educational aspect to Voter ID that I appreciate. It encourages citizens to engage with government processes at a basic level - getting an ID, understanding how to register to vote, etc. This engagement can lead to greater civic awareness and participation. Moreover, it might prompt discussions on how to make voter ID universally accessible, addressing issues like cost or accessibility for those who might face barriers in obtaining identification. This kind of policy can drive improvements in civic infrastructure, making government services more inclusive.

In our daily lives, we accept that identification is required for numerous activities far less significant than participating in the democratic process. You need ID to buy alcohol, to board an airplane, to rent a car, or even to pick up a package at the post office. These are tasks that, while important, don’t hold a candle to the act of voting in terms of its impact on society and governance. If we accept these checks for such routine activities, it seems only logical to extend this practice to voting, especially in federal elections where the stakes are higher for the nation as a whole. Implementing Voter ID for federal elections is not about creating barriers but about building confidence in our most significant democratic exercise.

2 Likes
3

I say, ONE RULE for ALL STATES. The US should be under one set of rules for voting.

1 Like
4

I am mostly in agreement, but I have a serious concern with the references to federal elections.

There really are no federal elections. Elections for federel House and Senate members are state elections. Citizens of Arkansas can’t vote for senators from Massachusetts. The election for president of the federal government is the only election that all citizens across the union can vote in, and that too is 50 state elections (plus D.C.), not a federal election. This is clear from the structure of the electoral college, which is an important safeguard of the sovereignty of the people, state by state.

Referring to “federal elections” would seem to give weight to the idea of having the federal government control elections. This would be a grave mistake, as it would put control of elections into far too few hands, and they would be partisan hands at that.

These are reasons why I believe a Voter ID amendment would be the correct course. And I do imagine there are 38 states that would ratify such an amendment.

5

And who would enforce that set of rules? The current partisan federal administration?

No, state sovereignty is far too important. The states are not administrative districts of the federal government. At all.

Besides, the 10th Amendment prevents (thankfully) the federal government from enforcing federal law against states.

A Constitutional Amendment would be the law of the land, applying to states and the federal government alike.

6

Honestly, a constitutional amendment may not be necessary. For house elections, the constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to alter laws regarding the time, places, and manner of the elections under article 1, section 4. The same clause does prevent Congress from passing laws regarding “the Places of chusing Senators”. I’m not sure what the judicial interpretation is regarding this specific clause, whether it literally means the Places only and not the Times or Manner, or if it is generally applied. If the literal interpretation is judicially accepted, then national voter ID would be covered for senatorial elections as well.

When it comes to the elections for senators and presidential electors (and statewide elections in general), it may fall under the Guarantee Clause (article 4, section 4). Currently, the Supreme Court holds that the Guarantee clause is nonjusticiable to be determined by Congress or the President. Congress could argue that because no voter ID laws are an infringement on the election system, and by extension, a republican form of government, that passing laws would be justified by the clause. This would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court. It could be passed in a way that doesn’t explicitly mention voter ID by requiring states to certify that voters are citizens of the state and the US and requiring some form of documents. This is just speculation, though.

7

The problem with “State Sovereignty” is that you have states that refuse to clean up voter rolls, refusing to set a standard for known issues with illegals who registered to vote when they got drivers licenses…and their response is to leave it up to the individual poll worker, whether or not they would bother to check for the little “9” on the back of the ID. This is a rather arbitrary standard. It should be a constitutional amendment, so neither party could unravel or disregard the laws.

1 Like
8

Then again, search up a list of challenges to the 1965 voting rights act (52 USC Subtitle I: Voting Rights) and the number of times the Supreme Court has decided in favor of the state making the challenge. A constitutional amendment would quash all of that. Federal law is just federal law. The 10 Amendment (and consequent anti-commandeering doctrine) prevents the federal government from compelling states to implement federal law or regulations.

An amendment would eliminate the wiggle room since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and can only be fiddled with through additional amendment(s). And an amendment should be as simple as possible, e.g.: “Voters shall present state-issued credentials confirming the voter’s identify and citizenship. Only citizens of the United States may vote in an election for federal political office. Voting more than once, e.g. voting in two different states, is a violation of the law. States shall maintain accurate voter registration lists, removing citizens who have moved to a different State, or who are deceased.”

That sort of thing…

9

That isn’t a problem with state sovereignty. But it is an argument in favor of making voter identification a constitutional amendment rather than a mere federal statute.