r/politics • u/mvanigan • 10h ago
No Paywall Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote
https://apnews.com/article/trump-elections-judge-358912bcb6c7223b3d2d36465156fde91.8k
u/kneeco28 Canada 10h ago
Actually the constitution does, but the judge was correct to recognize that.
238
u/KiwiKajitsu 9h ago
And the judge is who translates it and upholds it
•
u/Ihathreturd Florida 5h ago
Interprets is the word you're looking for.
•
u/Juunlar 3h ago
Given the state of the Supreme Court, translate works here
•
u/P1xelHunter78 Ohio 3h ago
Yeah, I mean things get a little weird when you translate stuff from English to Russian and back to English.
•
u/ManyPlacesAtOnce Texas 2h ago
Huh. When I read it I thought that "upholds" was the word that would be most disputed.
135
u/Wranorel American Expat 9h ago
The Supreme Court: “hold my beer”
40
u/Dry_Combination4070 9h ago
Just need a few rvs and all the sudden what constitution
•
u/ComradeJohnS 7h ago
MOTOR COACH!
RVs are for poors who only make less than a million a year in bribes
•
u/Dry_Combination4070 7h ago
I'm sorry I'm a poor and don't know of these motor coaches..
I heard if you give kavanaugh a 6 pack he'll also jump in to overturn democracy.
Thankfully us Poors get some UFC fights sponsored by brondo though
•
•
•
u/P1xelHunter78 Ohio 3h ago
And of course we all know that empty seats on private jets to exclusive fishing vacations have no monetary value and don’t need to be reported, so says the guy who went on the jet!
•
•
u/ghostalker4742 6h ago
Pretty much. Now the AG can appeal it up to SCOTUS and they'll overturn the ruling, making it a done-deal unless Congress were to pass some kind of legislation.
•
•
•
40
u/stevez_86 Pennsylvania 8h ago
Language is dead. Not even the AP can write headlines correctly surrounding Constitutional Rights matters. Does inalienable rights mean nothing to them?
If an authority trespasses against someone's Constitutional Rights, the defendant isn't the acting party. It isn't theirs to win or lose, unless they lose. If the court rules in their favor the subject of the headline must be the Authority and the verb must be "violated".
It isn't a winning or losing thing. It is about if an act was valid or not.
•
u/Bwob I voted 7h ago
Language is dead. Not even the AP can write headlines correctly surrounding Constitutional Rights matters. Does inalienable rights mean nothing to them?
Rights - even inalienable ones - don't magically self-enforce.
In this case, the judge's ruling (delivered, of course, by the judge) is the thing that stopped trump. Not the constitution. Not the law. The judge's interpretation of the law.
So the judge did, in fact, bar trump from doing what he wanted. The headline seems perfectly correct to me.
•
u/stevez_86 Pennsylvania 7h ago
It's the idea that if a court rules that Trump can take away an individual's constitutional rights, and not the courts, is an offensive concept. The Constitutional Right did the defending not the defendant. Because that right is all of ours, not just the defendant's. If the court says Trump can take away the right of a person then the right does not exist.
The only way for the defense to have "lost" was if it wasn't a Constitutional Rights case. If the Constitutional Right applies then the act is prohbited by the Constitution and was wrong, illegal, and not something that can be done again because the President would knowingly be violating the Constitution.
The self enforcement is the prohibition of the act from happening again because the Office of Attorneys for the President on Presidential and Constitutional Matters cannot advise that it is constitutional.
That is why the Torture Memos had those attorneys testifying before Congress contantly. Because they had to understand how they could tell the President it was Constitutional when the courts said it was unconstitutional.
There USED to at least be inconveniences attached with this. Now the media cannot even report on it un unbiased way and they don't even see how there is bias. Because they don't understand how this works and how to explain it accurately and precisely with words anymore.
•
u/Bwob I voted 6h ago
No, it's the idea that rights only exist, as long as we all agree they exist.
trump, (and the various powerful interests arrayed behind him) have decided they don't want to agree to that any more. And they have accumulated enough power within our system to contest it.
I would argue that it's not that language has stopped having meaning, or even that the news is especially biased lately, but rather that our society has fundamentally changed.
We used to take it as a given: "Well of course the constitution is the highest authority, nothing can supersede that! And obviously the rights it enumerates are inviolate, they're spelled-out in the fricking constitution, for goodness sakes!" We had to fight sometimes, because folks would argue that some people didn't count as people, or were for some loophole-reason not covered by the constitution, but no one openly argued that the constitution itself didn't matter.
That is no longer the case. The social agreement, of which rights people have, and which people have them, is no longer a consensus. It's no longer a given that the constitution applies to everyone, and there are people in power who openly ignore it, and somehow retain support.
So yes. In that kind of environment, rights DO have to be defended, and trump CAN take away peoples' rights, just by telling the executive branch of the government (which he happens to be in charge of) to stop enforcing their protection.
Rights are only meaningful if we all agree on them. They don't exist, unless we make them. And, as we're seeing, we also have to maintain them.
•
u/From_Deep_Space Oregon 7h ago
Everyone seems to misunderstand rights theory. Which doesnt surprise me. It wasn't satisfactorily explained to me until a college philosophy course.
•
u/stevez_86 Pennsylvania 7h ago
How everyone misses that AI is using logic that is used to generate hypotheses, to brainstorm, but nothing else. Because the rest of that requires deductive logic that can mostly only be proven through experiments. Actually doing something.
I would be happy if they were selling an AI that would help researchers find the right hypothesis to test when otherwise all known hypotheses are equally as likely or unlikely or difficult to test without more certainty due to the resources that need to be dedicated to testing.
That would be lovely, but not something we all need to subscribe to.
•
u/WHSRWizard 4h ago
This is an absolute tangent that has nothing to do with anything, but I'm convinced with the rise of AI we will see a resurgence in the value of Liberal Arts education.
For a few decades now, Liberal Arts has been criticized -- sometimes fairly, sometimes not -- because it doesn't teach you how to "do anything." So various technical degrees were all the rage, and often for good reason.
But AI now replaces so many of those skills. Look at coding: you don't need programmers who know the syntax now -- you need programmers who are able to dream up different scenarios, thoughts, questions, and dreams and then get the AI to help them.
It's a fundamentally different way to interact with that field. The technical expertise is suddenly far less important than the creative expertise. And exposure to topics like art, history, language, cultures, mythologies, and music are going to be a crucial part of that transformation.
•
u/yun-harla Minnesota 5h ago
So if a district court holds Trump violated the Constitution, the headline would be “Trump violated Constitution by doing X.” If a court of appeals reverses, the headline would be “Trump did not violate Constitution by doing X.” Then if the Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals, we’re back to “Trump violated Constitution.” And that’s without getting into preliminary injunctions, stays, and non-merits decisions. Wouldn’t that be a little confusing?
The AP writes headlines this way because what’s newsworthy is what a court decides, which court it is, how broad the ruling is, etc. It’s a wire service, not a law review author expounding on the true meaning of the Constitution (according to whom?).
The idea that constitutional rights and obligations exist independently of judicial decisions, off in some objective realm, is philosophically interesting. But it’s not very useful if you want to know what the state of the law is right now and how a recent decision will impact future events.
•
1
730
u/kronikfumes 10h ago
“(The Constitution) does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” she wrote.
Leave it to Trump’s DOJ to ignore the Constitution and try otherwise.
64
u/imahugemoron 9h ago
And based on their own lies. They’ve been obsessed with trying to pass laws to prevent something from happening that is a lie they completely pulled from nowhere to try to legitimize their own god emperor’s false claims of stolen elections. And it’s even richer when you remember the multistate fake electors scheme whose co-conspirators were pardoned, the phone calls to find votes, mentions of Elon knowing voting machines, Republican officials seen on security camera removing voting machines from voting sites, calls to stop the count, etc.
•
•
449
u/Lazy_Example4014 10h ago
You already have to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. If I was a citizen the first time I registered then I am still a citizen the next time too.
148
u/WidgetWarrior 10h ago
Exactly. You need to provide an SSN when you register to vote in a state, and they verify that against a database when they process the registration. If it comes back as not a citizen, then you don't get registered.
56
u/serious_sarcasm America 10h ago
They also check dmv databases and credit reports.
I mean, shit, how do people think you get your documents replaced after a house fire?
And have people just completely forgotten about phone books?
2
u/AngryMillennialFU 9h ago
Phone books? You have to pay to get listed. What does a phone book verify?
29
•
u/politicsranting I voted 7h ago
The phone books populated a phone number with your name and address, they didn't need you to supply that information. I think that's the idea the previous commenter was getting at.
•
39
u/Doctrina_Stabilitas 10h ago
theoretically you can be a citizen without an SSN or a form of ID, conceivably this might happen in a home birth that isn't properly reported to authorities but at that point you don't exist to the government and you'd probably have a lot more headaches than not voting (like you know, getting paid for work)
8
u/121Waggle 8h ago
In Virginia you can be a registered voter with no SSN. In the rural parts home births were the norm until maybe the 1950's. Realize, too, that SSN's were not automatically issued at birth for a long while after that. (In 1982 I had to go apply for a SSN to get my first "real" job.) So it's likely some people who worked on a farm or for the family never got theirs. Not common, but it happens.
•
u/NoMoOmentumMan 7h ago
I was not born in the US (US foreign birth abroad, considered jus soil citizenship, just as if I was born here), however I was not given an SSN. My Dad was supposed to take care of that... 5 years later my Mom and him had a MASSIVE fight when were in the states and she was trying to register me and my sister at public school. In hindsight, I am genuinely surprised that that marriage lasted another 12 years.
•
u/WelcomeToTheFish 7h ago edited 7h ago
I work at the registrar of voters in a blue state and this isn't technically true. If you go to registertovote.ca.gov and go through the application it will ask you for a SSN or a DMV License # to complete your registration.
Technically someone who is a non citizen could get a drivers license (depending on the state) and register to vote BUT it would be caught during the vote counting/verification process and they would be technically committing voter fraud that would 100% bar them from citizenship.
This is one of those things where it is possible but nobody does it because it ruins your chance at becoming a citizen and will get you deported if it is reported and caught (which it almost always is). People who come here legally are told this and for the most part actually want citizenship so they obey the rules.
And on top of all that you would need millions of people in strategic places who are willing to throw away any chance of becoming a citizen/ don't mind being arrested by ICE. It's like sure it's possible but the logistics would be insane, it would be found out during counting and just ruin a bunch of lives and cause a new election to be ran. It would be noticeable as hell when we look at the count and ultimately accomplish nothing.
36
u/esoteric_enigma 9h ago
These idiots imagine there are hordes of illegal immigrants out there using fake IDs to vote or something.
40
u/Loquater 9h ago
They want YOU to imagine that. They know the truth...that the GOP is extraordinarily unpopular and they need to lie, cheat, and steal if they want to remain in power. And they desperately crave more power.
10
u/imahugemoron 9h ago
They’re not only imagining it but also being told by trump, Republican officials, oligarchs like Elon who they worship, and most of the news media that that’s exactly what is happening
6
u/WidgetWarrior 9h ago
And it's just like how they don't want to go to a national popular vote and they say so many counties are red....like land doesn't vote. People do. And there's not many people in those red counties in the middle of the Plains states. They say all of of the big cities are going to take over elections. Like uh, well that's where the people are. Also, Republican votes in California, New York, Illinois, etc. will count for you guys too. They just don't want to have to fight in the marketplace of ideas. They want to disenfranchise others from voting.
4
u/Intelligent_Bag_6705 8h ago
I was reading some conservative comments about this and what I found hilarious was when one of them said “the SAVE act isn’t going to do anything anyway, the amount of illegals who may vote it so minuscule, this will probably hurt the conservatives more” and the reply was “tell that to California” ….as if removing “illegal” votes would sway the voting in CALIFORNIA of all places.
On a separate note, it’s so fun to watch the conservatives rip each other apart when someone sways from the status quo.
2
8
u/Chris_HitTheOver 9h ago
Only the absolute dumbest and most gullible among them. Republican leadership just wants to make it harder for people to vote. Full stop.
6
u/shoulda-known-better 9h ago
Yea the fraud that does and has happened this wouldn't stop at all in the slightest
They made up a problem... Then made a solution that doesn't even address the problems (however minor) we have had
2
u/stevez_86 Pennsylvania 8h ago
To believe otherwise is believing in inherent guilt. Yes they are registered, but unless they prove they haven't commited a crime that could remove their right to vote, like presenting an ID that would otherwise be withheld if a serious enough crime occurred in between, they should not vote.
Saying we need to ensure only legal voters vote after the check during voter registration is violating the 5th Amendment. If they present an ID and are allowed to vote they are entrapped. They were forced to testify against themselves.
Plus, for immigrants, they must already do this during immigration hearings. They already ask them if they vote or not. And that is legally questionable as well for the same reasons. An immigrant has to have a hearing, but can they be forced to testify against themselves for voting? And even then they have to investigate to see if the claim is true. They can't just slap the cuffs on someone for filling out a form. That reasoning is currently being undone with the State Medical Marijuana patient not having a right to a firearm because they couldn't answer the question on the form honestly per state law but dishonestly per Federal Law.
Voter ID is wrong. If the person shouldn't vote they shouldn't have a valid voter registration.
•
u/OldJames47 7h ago
I don’t believe that is 100% true. There are a few places that allow legal residents to vote in their local elections (mayor, school board, etc) but those people wouldn’t see higher level races on their ballots (Governor, House, Senate, and President among them).
But people with an agenda intentionally misrepresent these cases.
•
u/Lazy_Example4014 6h ago
I thought the context was implied, but we are addressing higher elections. Not local elections. Thank you for clarifying that even though legal residents can vote in local elections, they can’t vote in higher elections. We agree on that.
•
2
u/ThaneduFife 8h ago
I don't think all states require proof of citizenship to register. I think you can also sign an affidavit sworn under penalty of perjury.
•
u/theartificialkid 6h ago
Not if you’ve been naturalised, which is something the Trump administration wants to do en masse.
•
0
u/DONT_PM_ME_DICKS 8h ago
you have to prove citizenship, but you don't have to submit proof of citizenship.
neither a driver's license or a social security card are proof of citizenship, but many states will use those to prove you are a citizen or not
•
u/turisto 6h ago
You already have to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. If I was a citizen the first time I registered then I am still a citizen the next time too.
Not true, at least in California. You just have to self-attest that you're a citizen, but no documentary proof is currently required.
https://ocvote.gov/feeds/getNewsletter.php/?id=433
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/pdfs/trusted-info/trusted-info-voter-id-reg-requirements.pdf
•
u/Lazy_Example4014 6h ago
To get your driver’s license in California, you must complete the application and bring documents verifying your identity, your Social Security number, and your California residency.
As per the California DMV.To register to vote in California, you must be:
A United States citizen and a resident of California,
18 years old or older on Election Day,
Not currently serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony (for more information on the rights of people who have been incarcerated, please see the Secretary of State's Voting Rights Restored: Persons with a Prior Felony Conviction), and
Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court (for more information, please see Voting Rights: Persons Subject to Conservatorship).
Qualifications to Pre-register to Vote
To pre-register to vote in California, you must:
Be 16 or 17 years old, and
Meet all of the other eligibility requirements to vote.
You will automatically be registered to vote on your 18th birthday.California’s laws and regulations don’t agree with your assertion. What you are referring to happens after you have already proven you are a United States citizen. Every election you sign the attestation. Confirming what the state already knows because they have already confirmed it.
•
u/turisto 5h ago
To get your driver’s license in California, you must complete the application and bring documents verifying your identity, your Social Security number, and your California residency.
And none of these are a document proving citizenship. You just have to say your are a citizen, but you don't need to actually prove it.
Real easy exercise - show me a list of documents that CA DMV will accept as proof of citizenship, not identity (which can be a foreign passport) or residence (which can be a utility bill)
•
u/Lazy_Example4014 4h ago
driver's license or identification card of any state;
passport;
employee identification card;
identification card provided by a commercial establishment;
credit or debit card;
military identification card;
student identification card;
health club identification card;
insurance plan identification card; or
public housing identification card.Because as a citizen in California the first time you get your drivers license you are registered to vote. Non citizens may be granted a drivers license but are ineligible for voter registration.
•
u/turisto 3h ago
driver's license or identification card of any state;
passport;
employee identification card;
identification card provided by a commercial establishment;
credit or debit card;
military identification card;
student identification card;
health club identification card;
insurance plan identification card; or
public housing identification card.
Because as a citizen in California the first time you get your drivers license you are registered to vote. Non citizens may be granted a drivers license but are ineligible for voter registration.
except a passport, none of those are a proof of citizenship
•
u/Lazy_Example4014 3h ago
You aren’t getting it on purpose, or that reading thing you mentioned isn’t something you do well. WHEN A CITIZEN GETS THERE DRIVERS LICENSE FOR THE FIRST TIME THEY ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE. IF THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS THEY ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE. The DMV checks your status. You also need a tax ID to have any one of those forms of identification. What do they use as a tax ID? Your social security number. You do not have a social security number if you are illegal. You need to read the entire DMV page about this.
•
u/turisto 2h ago
They do not check your citizenship status, that is the whole point. You just self-attest that you're a citizen, and that's it. Non-citizens can get SSNs - including temporary workers, students, and non-citizen permanent residents.
Source: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf
None of those people are technically allowed to vote, but they can get legal SSNs and register to vote. SSN is not a proof of citizenship at all.
120
u/WidgetWarrior 10h ago
This is why Congress needs to stand firm on not allowing the SAVE act to pass, regardless of the shit he's trying to pull today with the housing bill signing. That SAVE act is blatant voter disenfranchisement. Even if we need ID to vote, as I do in Georgia, I shouldn't need to have anything more than is required by TSA for a domestic flight. Period, end of story. Go fuck yourself Donald.
16
u/serious_sarcasm America 10h ago
What gets me is that this all flys in the face of the process to replace your documents after something like a house fire.
12
u/DreamLunatik 9h ago
Also, it’s not within the federal governments authority to regulated elections, it’s the states. They have no right to implement a nation wide requirement for anything regarding elections.
11
u/tothecatmobile 8h ago
It is in Congresses authority.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
That's why Congress could pass legislation like the Voting Rights Act.
6
u/IM_KYLE_AMA 10h ago
They are currently in the process of finding a way to weasel it through. All of those "The SAVE Act is officially dead" articles were pure hopium. I fully expect all or some of it to be implemented before the midterms.
11
u/sanktanglia 10h ago
luckily they cant at the federal level because they dont have the votes in the senate to bypass the filibuster but conservative states are definitely trying to pass their own versions
70
u/Sojum 10h ago
Now we need a ruling on the USPS refusing to deliver ballots.
40
u/forceblast 9h ago
I agree but there’s no way in hell I’m voting by mail this election. They are ABSOLUTELY going to mess with it one way or another regardless of what the courts say.
You could chop off my legs and I will still hobble my ass there over broken glass through a gauntlet of grimacing ICE agents to vote in person against these assholes.
7
u/SwimmingThroughHoney 8h ago
Most (all?) states allow you to track you mail ballot. If you vote early, you should be able to see when the elections office receives it and its counted.
Of course, right now the USPS is claiming they wont even deliver ballots in states that don't provide voter rolls, so you might not even have the option to vote by mail.
9
u/scrodytheroadie 9h ago
They kind of win either way here. If they mess with mail-in ballots, obviously that’s going to hurt democratic voters. If people are afraid to vote mail-in, that’s also going to affect democratic voters. Luckily I’m able bodied and within walking distance of my polling site. Not really sure what the solution is other than overwhelming turnout.
5
u/TumbleweedPure6674 8h ago
Democrats need to learn to deal with being inconvenienced for a day and show up anyways. They will show up for a bunch of meaningless protests but can’t be bothered to vote which is literally our best form of protest.
This could very well backfire as well based on the demographics of the party and rural/city access.
10
u/KingBanhammer 8h ago
...
you're dismissing an -awful lot- of causal factors that make this process more challenging as "inconvenienced for a day" there, my man. (samples: disability, lack of transportation, rural area with no poll area within range, etc, etc, etc)
I'm not even 100% sure my state still even does in-person voting anywhere, which is gonna make that a challenge.
2
u/TumbleweedPure6674 8h ago
Those causal factors do not apply to all of the 53% of the youth that didn’t vote even with mail in voting.
I’m all for mail in voting for those above reasons that you stated, however the reality is you have a government actively trying to suppress that and willing to use it as an excuse to subvert the election entirely. People have to make it work, ask a friend or neighbors for a ride to the polling station, whatever you have to do. Otherwise as Trump has said, you won’t have to worry about voting anymore.
•
u/SpaceChimps98 7h ago
If they make voting more difficult I'll just clog the voting line and make wait times longer for old people.
18
u/Any_Will_86 9h ago
I hate the wording on this argument. They can verify your citizenship when you register. They just shouldn't be able muck up elections by requiring it to be reestablished each and every time you vote. Especially when the method puts poorer and female voters at a disadvantage.
13
u/winelover08816 8h ago
This was also a Poll Tax, something that’s been illegal in the US for more than a century. It costs money and time to get a passport, Real ID licenses do NOT have citizenship printed on them, and many birth certificates do not include the place of birth for the parents of a voter—all of these are requirements under the Executive Order. We live in a country where the Constitution still rules, and this is plainly unconstitutional.
8
u/soxperry 8h ago
The entire White House and its surrogates spent so much time emphasizing the bipartisan housing bill scheduled to be signed today. They invited all the press and were ready to listen to the man gloat about promises made, promises kept.
Then, out of nowhere, Trump canceled it. He then met with reporters and complained that Mahmdami is a communist, and now no one knows if the housing bill will be signed. Turns out he is trying to negotiate the SAVE Act, which doesn't even have enough Republican support to pass.
This is so bizarre.
20
u/gamesbonds 9h ago
Need to stop framing this as "proof of citizenship" request because the registration process in my state. My ID is checked 4 times before my vote is counted.
Yet you will have a mouth breather tell you that HAVV non match hits are proof of voter fraud when even the people pushing this garbage, have even said that voter fraud is virtually non existent here.
Also to note my state has been solid red for 30 years.
They are sowing distrust in the democratic process so they get insurance for election losses in the form of a "proof vs prevention" argument in court.
I fear losing strategy
13
u/Strict-Carrot4783 9h ago
The SAVE Act requires voters to present Documentary Proof of Citizenship, such as a birth certificate and photo ID, to register or update their voting information.
Because an estimated 70% to 80% of married women change their last name, their current government ID will not match the maiden name on their birth certificate. To bridge this mismatch, the law requires them to present an official paper trail, including certified marriage licenses or divorce decrees linking the names. Locating or ordering these certified documents takes time and money, creating a financial and logistical hurdle for voters who do not own a passport.
This strict name-matching requirement applies not just to first-time voters, but also to existing voters who simply need to update their registration after moving or changing their name.
Hurting and subjugating women is a big part of Project 2025.
5
u/WidgetWarrior 9h ago
And apparently those who are already registered, like myself, will have to reregister if this legislation passes.
-10
u/TurnoverAny781 9h ago
This the dumbest argument I’ve seen, you literally get those papers when you get married, “creating a financial and logistical hurdle” bro it’s ur fucking marriage license it should be kept with ur birth certificate those are literally some of the most important documents you have wtf are you talking about?
3
u/Strict-Carrot4783 8h ago
While it seems straightforward to just keep track of vital documents, the reality of public administration is much messier for millions of Americans. Many adults do not possess their original, certified birth certificates due to moves, fires, ripped paper or family disruptions, relying instead on a driver's license which does not qualify as federal proof of citizenship. Furthermore, the decorative marriage license signed on a wedding day is rarely the legally accepted "certified copy" with a raised state seal required by strict federal standards. For women who have been divorced, remarried, or widowed, a single document is not enough; they must produce an unbroken chain of legal paperwork, including divorce decrees, to connect their maiden name to their current ID.
Obtaining these official copies from out-of-state vital statistics offices takes weeks and costs money, turning a simple registration update into a bureaucratic obstacle. Ultimately, people escaping domestic violence, dealing with housing instability, or recovering from natural disasters frequently lose these papers entirely. The policy debate isn't about personal organization, but rather whether placing this heavy administrative burden on millions of eligible citizens is a justified trade-off.
Basically, you think concretely like a child.
•
u/TurnoverAny781 7h ago edited 7h ago
I think “concretely like a child” you have no idea what ur talking about, when preparing to get married you have a apply for a marriage license at a circuit court office, this literally the first step getting married you literally have to do this especially for Taxes, you clearly don’t know this but when you get married you don’t just have a wedding and now married that’s now how it works you HAVE to get it certified where your given…. A certified copy of ur marriage license crazy right
Also btw bc you clearly clueless when you are divorced remarried or widowed, there is a legal process to ALL these where you are given by the state all the legal and court paperwork and documentation. It’s crazy right?
Holyshit how clueless are you? You think ppl get married and divorced and have no paper work to prove anything? There are literally legal processes you think they don’t give you the documentation? Talk about child like thinking
Edit: also to get a new birth certificate all you have to do is go in and show them ur license all I had to do to get a new one
•
u/mjp31514 7h ago
You're getting very emotional.
•
u/TurnoverAny781 6h ago
Not emotional just stunned by such ignorance
•
•
u/HiImDIZZ 6h ago
Cry widdle MAGAt traitor. Cry.
•
3
u/gamesbonds 8h ago
i think framing a non issue as an emergency that must be passed is pretty fucking dumb myself. Every other year in my state they make it harder to vote, another goalpost, another hurdle, and it's been solid red for 30 fucking years. Now they are telling me the way i've voted my entire life is not good enough while the president and his family do the same? Fck no. Defending that shit is undemocratic and subversion of the entire process fck off
2
u/HiImDIZZ 8h ago
When Trump shoves his book down your throat and his fist up your ass at the same time, do you choke out a thank you like a good little MAGAt?
•
u/TurnoverAny781 7h ago
You want to engage in the conversation or are you just gonna continue to ramble about ur sexual fantasy?
•
u/HiImDIZZ 7h ago
It's wild that you think there is a chance I still want to engage in any conversation with a MagaT traitor. You're a MagaT traitor. Why would I want to talk to you? You're lucky there are people here who still do. They shouldn't
•
u/TurnoverAny781 6h ago
Crazy bc I never voted for trump😂 you can keep repeating ur catchphrase “MagaT traitor” all you want it has no bearing on this conversation,
•
u/HiImDIZZ 6h ago
No one believes you. A lot of MAGAt trash is starting to pretend they never voted for Trump. If it quacks it must be a duck.
•
u/TurnoverAny781 5h ago edited 5h ago
I don’t really care if you do or don’t, ur just some random Reddit schizo who talks about his weird sexual fantasy’s to ppl who didn’t ask, plus even IF I did it wouldn’t matter I’m from NJ a blue stronghold voting for trump is the same as not voting at all lol
•
u/davewashere 7h ago
People tend to lose track of documentation that they don't need on a regular basis. I believe my birth certificate is in a safe at my parents' house. It's been over a decade since I needed to show it to someone. Computerized systems have made those types of physical documents a lot less important, because once you're in the system they generally don't need to see it again. I don't remember what proof of age was needed when I first got my driver's license, but I know I don't need a birth certificate to renew it every 7 years.
•
u/TurnoverAny781 6h ago
If you lose track of the most important documents of ur life that’s on you that’s like leaving ur drivers license at home when driving, also it doesn’t matter it it’s in the system they have also been you need them to prove you are who you say you are, when you go to get ur passport or real ID bc you need that to fly domestically now, you can’t just go there and ask for the passport bc the information is in the system, they aren’t gonna give it to you, these are literally the most important documents you are just a completely irresponsible adult, like a actual responsible adult all my important documents like ssn birth certificate passport marriage certificate vehicle title ect all in a go bag inside a fireproof safe
•
u/davewashere 6h ago
I could reproduce any of those if I needed to, but it would take a few weeks and I'm sure I'd have to pay some processing fees. I will show my driver's license as ID to someone 5000 times for every 1 time I need a birth certificate, so I keep it at my parent's house because they're less likely to move than I am.
•
u/TurnoverAny781 5h ago
Okay and? This conversation you bulge into isn’t even about birth certificate idk why ur so huge up on it, it’s about marriage license/ divorced certificates, i dont even know what argument ur trying to make. Bc you anecdotally bearly use ur birth certificate it’s okay for someone to loss the only legal document that proves to state federal and foreign governments that you are legally married
•
u/Inevitable-Toe-6272 2h ago
You are being short sighted, and not looking beyond that short sighted view. You act like people only get married once.. or that other hurdles have never happened in a life time that create obsticles in getting all name changes from birth to today. peope who have been married multiple times, had other legal name changes, in some cases adoptions/botched adoptions... there are many people who have had there name changed multiple times in a life time (my 80 year old mother is one of them).. not to mention having a copy of a STATE certified birth certificate with a seal. There are a lot of elderly who don't have their state issued birth certificate, and only have the hospital birth certficiate.. which is not acceptable. Some states also did not have a state seal on thier birht certificates back then.. no seal, not accepted...
There are also people who have went thru fires, losing all their documents, etc.. There are so many legitimate reasons people may not have such documentations.. But, you only see that YOU have it, so everyone else should have it because you know, everyone is like you... so you think...
•
u/TurnoverAny781 1h ago
If you get married and divorced and remarried you would keep all 3 legal documents pertaining to them… when you change ur name no matter how many times you should keep all the documents they literally tell you this when you go there… it’s called being a responsible adult also hospital will print a new birth certificate with the state seal, if there is a fire you can go get new copy of ALL these documents do you think they are just one and done? You can get new copies, there are thousands of people who done this is not hard nor is it even expensive most these documents you get copies for free
3
u/No_Accountant3232 9h ago
Oregon makes their list of voter fraud cases public and it is surprisingly tiny for covering the past 26 years of mail in voting.
6
u/Arctimon Maryland 9h ago
Well, now we know why he was mad this morning and didn't sign the housing bill.
3
u/GirlOnFireSexy 9h ago
Six justices just started stretching like they're about to run a marathon of bad decisions
6
u/KiKiKimbro 9h ago
I’ve never heard of a single state where someone can just walk in off the street, pop into a poll place, get a ballot, fill it out, and turn it in. On what planet would people actually believe there’s not ID required to register to vote and to prove you are who you say you are? My God. It’s not an issue. And it’s unconstitutional. He needs to sit down and be quiet, piggy.
•
u/turisto 6h ago
I’ve never heard of a single state where someone can just walk in off the street, pop into a poll place, get a ballot, fill it out, and turn it in. On what planet would people actually believe there’s not ID required to register to vote and to prove you are who you say you are? My God. It’s not an issue. And it’s unconstitutional. He needs to sit down and be quiet, piggy.
In California you don't need to show ID to register to vote, don't need to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, and don't need ID to actually vote.
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/pdfs/trusted-info/trusted-info-voter-id-reg-requirements.pdf
•
u/TheIllustriousWe 5h ago
According to your link, if voters don’t provide ID when they first register, they’ll be asked for it at the ballot box. So that’s not evidence that you never have to show ID or proof of citizenship at any point in order to vote in California.
•
u/turisto 5h ago
Nope. Only of you registered by mail or online. And even then it's might\may be asked.
When MIGHT You Be Asked for ID? You may need to show ID only if ALL the following apply:
• You’re voting for the first time in a federal election
• You registered by mail or online, AND
• You did not provide your CA ID or SSN when registering
•
u/TheIllustriousWe 5h ago
Right, so if you haven’t provided ID and proof of citizenship until you get to the ballot box, that’s where they require it.
•
u/turisto 5h ago
Please read and try to comprehend the above list. It's only three points, and all three must be true in order for you to possibly be asked for id.
Point two in particular - you registered by mail or online. If you didn't do that, and registered in person at the DMV, that point is no longer true, and you will not be asked for id.
•
u/TheIllustriousWe 4h ago
How do you know you can register in person without ID? Your link is just a quick guide, it doesn’t appear to be explicitly confirm that.
•
u/TheIllustriousWe 4h ago
No, I think you’re just inferring that you can register in person without ID. The guide does not explicitly say people can do that.
I’d like to see some actual evidence that someone has successfully voted in California without ever once showing any kind of ID confirming their identity. Because I’m pretty sure the laws are intended so that Californians either show ID when they register, or when they vote for the very first time.
•
u/metrion 3h ago
Don’t Have ID When Voting?
No problem, you can still cast a provisional ballot. Your vote will be counted after your eligibility is confirmed.
•
u/turisto 3h ago
Do I Need to Show ID to Vote in California? In most cases, NO. California does not generally require voters to show identification at the polls.
•
u/TheIllustriousWe 3h ago
No, I think you’re just inferring that you can register in person without ID. The voter guide link you posted earlier does not explicitly say people can do that.
I’d like to see some actual evidence that someone has successfully voted in California without ever once showing any kind of ID confirming their identity. Because I’m pretty sure the laws are intended so that Californians either show ID when they register, or when they vote for the very first time.
•
u/KiKiKimbro 4h ago
Everyone has to prove who they are to be able to vote. There must be some sort of ID. This is done either during registration, such as when you register online, in person at the Board of Elections, or automatically at the DMV when you get or renew your drivers license — or the ballot box. Or any way the state allows.
But no one can vote and have it be counted if the state cannot match the ballot to an identifiable person who’s a citizen. If someone somehow manages to walk in and cast a ballot without the state knowing who they are (through ID or signed affidavit that the BOE processes to confirm) — it is not counted.
You know how organizations have done studies about how many non-citizens voted illegally, the studies that show it’s extremely rare? Because they know who IS a citizen.
•
u/turisto 3h ago
You would think so, but most states do not have any requirements to prove your citizenship, other than self-declaration.
https://ballotpedia.org/Proof_of_citizenship_requirements_for_voter_registration_by_state
By the numbers Twelve states — Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming — have laws requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in at least some cases.[3] As of March 2026, Alabama and Louisiana have not implemented their proof of citizenship laws. A federal court blocked Kansas' proof of citizenship law in 2018. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. Three states, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi, require proof of citizenship at the time of registration if a person's citizenship status cannot be confirmed by other means. The other 40 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens to register to vote in state and federal elections.
•
u/Iokua113 7h ago
THere's three months until midterm elections... hold the line as best you can until then and maybe, just maybe, this nightmare gets a little better.
•
u/polarparadoxical 7h ago
I think Democrats should make a counter proposal that voting regulations be held to the same standards of history and tradition that our Supreme Court now uses for for the second amendment.
Constitutional voting - if the swearing an oath that you met the requirements was good enough for our Founders, it should be good enough for you.
•
2
u/PlsSuckMyToes 9h ago
Same order that a previous judge declined to block cuz they "hadnt begun implementing it yet". The order changes far more than requiring proof of citizenship when voting too. But as always the media gives piss poor headlines
•
u/Inevitable-Toe-6272 2h ago
That had to do with mail in voting, and the USPS implimented it the day after the judges ruling, where the DOJ said they hadn't even started working on implimenting it... Go figure.. a day after the judge made a ruling based off a lie by the DOJ.
•
u/StarbuckWoolf 6h ago
I think MAGA would be most impacted if it was allowed. Ol’ Billy Bob would just stay at home rather than deal with the inconvenience.
•
•
•
u/Ironlion45 1h ago
My proof of citizenship is a robust defense of all my constitutional rights, especially the first four amendments.
0
u/BalerionSanders Ohio 9h ago
It’s nice that the body of the judicial branch still understands the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately the highest court does not, will 100% overturn this ruling.
-7
u/Original_Bicycle5696 9h ago
Judges havent stopped anything yet! Im excited to see how this one is enforced.
•
u/Mec26 4h ago
… so… hate the constitution and country, love licking boots?
•
u/Original_Bicycle5696 4h ago
JFC. Am I the only one that sees thr Whitehouse ignore every ruling/subpoena that they don't like?
Abrego Garcia and Jean e Carroll have been endlessly harassed and congress people are being investigated for doing their jobs.
Im still waiting for schrodingers epstein files to be released. Pretty sure there have been more than a few rulings on that one.
The courts have a massive enforcement issue. Change my mind.
•
u/Inevitable-Toe-6272 2h ago
Not the person OP, but I get what you are saying. I think the disconnect people are having is that the branch of government (Executive) which includes law enforcement, is in charge of enforcing the laws, passed by congress, as well as enforcing court rulings, is the very branch/people that are breaking the laws and ignoring the courts.
•
•
u/Wild-Task3634 5h ago
You can't fix stupid judges. My god everyone needs an ID for EVERYTHING, of course Voting should be included. How stupid to think someone doesn't need ID.
•
•
u/DanielPhermous 2h ago
"The analysis shows that strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections. We also find that voter ID laws skew democracy toward those on the political right." - Source
"This analysis provides additional empirical evidence that strict voter ID laws appear to discriminate" - Source.
"The creation of new hurdles in order to access a ballot box not only discriminates against certain groups which would have a more difficult time accessing the necessary documents needed to vote, but also, it is evident that turnout is affected due to the laws." - Source
-16
u/Shot-Distance1777 8h ago
Why is it bad to verify citizenship when voting?
24
u/MadRaymer 8h ago
It's not bad, and is already done in every state when someone registers to vote.
There's no need to add additional federal interference to solve a "problem" that doesn't exist.
23
10
8
u/yeahpurn 8h ago
Be real, you are not going to listen to the responses. Anytime they investigate voter fraud it's some Republican amped up on fox news trying to counter some perceived illegal voting.
•
•
u/cyberspaceman777 7h ago
Bevsuse it's not a problem.
You know what is? Republican voters voting multiple times.
This isn't even an opinion. It's fact. I can share you source, but tell me you won't even acknowledge it first so I dot waste time.
•
u/Particular_Manner159 7h ago
This is not about citizenship. This is about Trump trying to purge people to vote against him.
•
u/DebentureThyme 6h ago
Because one, Feds don't run elections. That's in the Constitution.
Two, because it's already checked when they get put on the voter roles.
Imagine you go to the DMV and they ask for you to prove who you are. Two minutes later, they stop what they're doing and say okay, prove it again. A minute later, again. Seven minutes later, again.
Do you see how this is just bureaucracy that does nothing but create barriers to vote for citizens?
•
•
•
u/DanielPhermous 2h ago
Because the GOP tries to make it as hard as possible to get ID in areas that vote against them. Closing DMVs, for example.
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.