This is a complete non-problem, but “solving” things that aren’t problems and in doing so creating real problems that then need to be solved is very on brand for Republicans.
Still the only voter ID anyone should need
Republicans are making a big push for legislation requiring Texans to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote, and key lawmakers are signaling that they’ll make it a priority next year.
The push is part of a national effort by the GOP and conservative allies who assert that such legislation is needed to stop noncitizens from illegally casting ballots, even though such cases are already very rare.
Texas Republican lawmakers have filed at least five bills so far ahead of the legislative session opening in January. It’s too early to tell which ones could get traction when the session starts. Some of the bills appear to be modeled after federal legislation considered earlier this year by the U.S. Congress, where the measure passed the House but stalled in the Senate. At least one calls for placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot next year for voters to consider. Others mirror a law adopted 20 years ago in Arizona, the only state that currently enforces a proof of citizenship requirement for voters.
Because of conflicts between Arizona’s law and federal voting rights laws, Arizona maintains a split voter roll, with a small percentage of residents who haven’t provided proof of citizenship and are allowed to cast ballots only in federal elections. The makeup of the “federal only” list shows how certain demographic groups — including Native voters and young people — are at greater risk of being disenfranchised over citizenship documentation requirements, a Votebeat analysis has found.
If Texas were to adopt a similar system, experts say, it could also potentially disenfranchise citizens, because research has found that millions of Americans — for various reasons — do not have access to documents that prove their citizenship.
And, as in Arizona, such a law could impose new administrative burdens for election officials who would need additional training and resources in order to comply.
“This will be something that affects you if you’re young, if you’re old, if you’re Republican, if you’re Democrat, it really doesn’t matter,” said Jasleen Singh, legal counsel for the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, a voting rights nonprofit that has studied the potential effects of requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. State lawmakers are putting “millions of people at risk of not being able to meet those requirements,” Singh said.
The story outlines the different bills that have been filed and the experience that Arizona has had with this kind of law, which is a big administrative burden to local officials and took years to implement correctly because it’s such a disruption to the system. As this law is almost certainly going to be aimed at new registrants, you and I wouldn’t have to do anything. Unless we move to another county, and then have to re-register. Do you have your passport on hand? There are some other docs that would be acceptable, but that too is one of the complexities of this law. It’s also just a matter of time before someone’s identity is stolen because their passport or passport number got mislaid or mishandled. Won’t that be fun? This is a priority for Republicans because their lord and master told them it was, so get ready for this to happen.
The 2025 GOP Mission Statement: “A solution in search of a problem.”
Why is proof of eligibily to vote such a big deal [in the US]?
From a comparative political system perspective, this is yet another instance of deplorable dysfunction of U.S. and state government. And it’s not just because (depending on viewpoint) Republicans either want to suppress the vote or are more committed to eliminate error and voting by those not entitled to do so under governing law, be it because of noncitizenship or conviction status (e.g., Crystal Mason in Texas, Oscar Stilley in Arkansas).
This challenge is adminstrative in nature and could in theory have been addressed long ago. Every other democratic country has to deal with this to implement the principle of the people selecting and controlling those who will rule them.
Even Mexico has managed to set up a system where each person is assigned a unique identifying code, Clave Única de Registro de Población (CURP), and issues a voter ID card (Credencial para votar) to adults that does double duty as a national ID card. Ditto with other Latin American countries.
As for Europeans, no problem showing your passport as proof of identity, which is all that is needed when your eligibility status is already reflected on the voter registration roll at your local polling station. What’s wrong with having a nonpartisan (or bi-partisan) election administration authority or commission set up to manage the database (instead of county clerks picked in partisan elections, as in Texas?).
The latest technological advance is the use and verification of biometric identifiers at the polling place, rather than just comparing photo ID card (or passport) data with the voter registration data.
The Carter Administration suggested a national ID Card and people went insane thinking it would be used for the government to track people. As conspiracy theories are much more widespread now, I can only imagine the reaction.
Wolfgang, Americans would go apeshit if you gave them an ID number. Plus, as lackadaisical as the US of Merikkka government is at data protection?
We’re a failing state, not Tex-ass, but the US of A, in that sense of failing state.
Re: “Americans would go apeshit if you gave them an ID number.”
We already have numerous ID numbers. At the minimum SSN, Texas Driver’s License or Texas Identity Card, Passport/Card or Permanant Resident Card, Texas License to Carry Handgun (some of us) and other IDs for distinct population subcategories.
No good reason why voter registration document can’t be in the nature of a picture ID or dual or multi-purpose like TDL/Texas ID Card.
Why can’t we just have one instead of multiples that don’t always reconcile properly and don’t include the entirety of the resident population?
It could be called something other than “national ID card” to make it more palatable politically and ideologically.
PS: On a linguistic note, the word “Americans” encompasses a broad category and is not limited to Gringos. It includes Mexicans, Canadians, and the remainder of the Americas, not all Spanish-speaking. Think Brazilians for example.
Now that more Spanish surname voters are voting GOP, how are the Republican voter suppression strategies going to change?
J, Dan Patrick wanted a bridge built over the railroad tracks that limited access to Milby.
Yes, Republicans want to suppress the votes of non-citizens. This is also the desire expressed by the majority of voters (some of which included Democrats and Independents) who just overwhelmingly elected Donald J. Trump as our next President. This number also includes many who live in majority Hispanic border towns along our Texas-Mexico border. White liberals just don’t get it, but that’s ok. We’re winning on this issue.
Re: Latinos voting for Trump & MAMMA
Paradoxically no doubt for many, Republicans would appear to have good reason now to enfranchise illegal/undocumented immigrants, based on the observed voting patterns (while deporting only those that are undesirable for clearly defined and obvious reasons that are established individually, not categorically).
Why?
Because, based on estimates, males outnumber females in all age categories.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/257783/estimated-number-of-illegal-immigrants-in-the-us-by-age-and-sex/ . For that reason alone, the gender gap in voting would benefit Republicans, all other things being equal.
But all other things are not to be ignored. Other attributes of the demographic in question also favor Republicans.
A large proportion of undocumented male immigrants work with their hands (i.e., they are what used to be called blue color or working class) and will be receptive to having their hands-on contributions to the economy recognized for that reason as well as for cultural background reasons. Being more rough, more tough not just “resilient”, and more macho naturally than their effeminate local counterparts — especially the college-educated class of airconditioned wimps, — the Trumpesque style of political posturing and rhetoric resonates much stronger with them. — Think lucha libre!
But what about political feasibility?
Now that Republicans will hold the power in the federal government, they are in a position to use it for immigration reform that will suit them.
The legalization & ensuing enfranchisement would be selective, weeding out those with criminal backgrounds or gang affiliations visible in tattoos. A further screening criterion could be income evidenced by tax returns (which will also encourage reporting and therefore enhance tax collection) and/or hours worked (for hourly workers) or line of work (industry sectors experiencing shortages), though the latter would be more complicated to prove for on an individualized basis.
Small-scale entrepreneurship could also be encouraged to provide an alternate eligibility path to legal status and subsequent acquisition of the suffrage. Being already married might also be considered to improve the in-wedlock birth rate.
Republicans would be calling Dems’ bluff by coming up with a broad-sweep legalization program of their own, and the newly enfranchised will know who to thank for their recently attained recognized status as net contributors to society and eligibility for citizenship/voting rights.
File under: MAMMA America More Masculine Again)
Sue, our ultra-zealous Texas AG is only prosecuting six cases of suspected voter fraud. No one has presented any evidence that non citizen voting occurs or is any kind of a problem. Do you have such evidence?