The WaPo article quotes "election experts" who, unsurprisingly, say he can't.
Trump’s order directs the Election Assistance Commission to change the federal voter registration form to require voters to provide government-issued documentary proof of citizenship. Under his order, voters could use passports or REAL IDs to prove citizenship but not birth certificates....
“The aim here is voter suppression pure and simple,” UCLA law professor Rick Hasen wrote on his blog. ... Hasen questioned the legality of the measure because the president does not oversee the Election Assistance Commission.
Posts
51 comments:
Suppressing illegal immigrants from voting is known as executing the laws faithfully.
Excessive burden.
"Election experts" say?
Well, that's good enough for me. I'm convinced.
How is it voter suppression? Are progressives going to make racists arguments again that skin color prevents people from getting an ID that is required to obtain social security?
I love how the liberal/left come up with these propaganda talking points. Want people to show ID to prove they are US citizens and are who they say they are? Who can argue against that? In fact, why would anyone who wanted fair and honest elections argue against it?
Seems unanswerable, no? But the liberal/left just says "Thats voter supression because poor people, especially blacks don't have IDs". That's false of course, but it doesn't matter. They have their "Talking point" and all they need is for the lawyers to push it, the liberal/left judges to approve it, and for the MSM to chant it over and over again.
How many fingers do I have? Six. That's the right answer. Only racists say 5.
I"ll never forget Roberts siding with the D's to keep the Census from asking people if they are citizens or not. "OMG, you can't do that, because blahdeblah". Total bullshit on stilts. But it worked.
He's the Executive Branch, not the Legislative, so I don't think he can do it.
Let's see who moos loudest. Then we will know whose ox was gored. Well "bellows" instead of "moos" is probably more accurate. And the partisan hacks in black will no doubt come out and self identify.
Let's see who moos loudest. Then we will know whose ox was gored. Well "bellows" instead of "moos" is probably more accurate. And the partisan hacks in black will no doubt come out and self identify.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent, bipartisan commission whose mission is to help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process
Ah, another independent bipartisan commission run and funded by the US government. No such thing in the Constitution as an "independent agency". It's part of the executive branch, and therefore, it's head is POTUS. And straight from it's website again: As the only federal agency solely focused on election administration, the EAC works to protect the nation’s election equipment, support election officials, serve voters, and ultimately help make elections safe, secure, accurate, and accessible by fulfilling this mission. So President Trump, boss of the EAC, is ordering them to fulfill their mission as given by Congress to make the elections secure by ensuring only citizens vote.
I see no problem
Trump shakes his pee pee
So it won't drip in his shorts
Judge drops TRO
"I love how the liberal/left come up with these propaganda talking points. Want people to show ID..."
To get into a restaurant during covid? Sure!
To vote? Hell no!
Isn't it voter suppression not to allow everybody in the world to vote in US elections? Absentee votes for everyone!
"Excessive burden."
Why?
The excuse is disenfranchising, but the reason that the Dems oppose this is because they maintain their power by blatantly cheating in elections. If you have to prove citizenship to vote, millions of stalwart Dem voters are going to disappear over night - almost all of which were fraudulent in the first place. Hundreds of thousands probably in each of the swing states that the Dems stole in 2020: AZ, GA, MI, PA, etc.
"Excessive burden."
Why?
It ought to be something that you might have.
"It ought to be something that you might have."
I'm sorry- I don't understand. Can you explain?
I've posted here about our extremely suppresive electoral laws in Puerto Rico. All comply with the us constitution, BTW.
For those who doubt the suppressiveness, here's turnout fo the past 70 years or so. On a very high voter registration rate.
1956 80%
1960 85%
1964 84%
1968 78%
1972 80%
1976 86%
1980 88%
1984 89%
1988 85%
1992 83%
1996 81%
2000 81%
2004 82%
2008 79%
2012 78%
2016 55%
2020 55%
2024 64%
In addition to proof of citizenship, the order also requires
voter ID, single-day voting, and paper ballots.
Kinda like PR used to.
John Henry
“The aim here is voter suppression pure and simple,”
No, it's not.
So what does Prof. Althouse think? She is a lawyer, so she should be able to generate an intelligent opinion.
“The aim here is voter suppression pure and simple,”
No, it's not.
Correct. The aim is ineligible voter suppression. One might wonder about the motives of anyone opposed to that.
I live in California, where we have had mail in voting since 1962. Sounds OK to me. Let's continue.
according to WaPoo "experts"..
is President Trump President?
just asking
The EO is invalid because states run elections and once again nobody is explaining it, everyone is just responding to the headline.
I suspect the real reason for Trump's EO -- is to be able to dispute any state election results they don't like by the mid terms.
It’s always “ other suppression.” I guess if you stop an illegal alien from voting in a presidential election you are engaging in “voter suppression.”
A biometric Social Security card would be a good way to establish a national ID, and maybe the only way to enforce our immigration laws.
“The aim here is voter suppression pure and simple,” UCLA law professor Rick Hasen wrote on his blog. ... Hasen questioned the legality of the measure because the president does not oversee the Election Assistance Commission.
Of course it is. Illegal voters should be suppressed.
There is only one reason why Democrats refuse to support election integrity laws.
They are cheating.
They are casting illegal votes for people who do not exist, are dead, or have no legal standing to vote in our elections.
If they were not cheating they would not object to these common sense rules.
Period.
Darkisland said...
I've posted here about our extremely suppresive electoral laws in Puerto Rico. All comply with the us constitution, BTW.
For those who doubt the suppressiveness, here's turnout fo the past 70 years or so. On a very high voter registration rate.
1956 80%
1960 85%
1964 84%
1968 78%
1972 80%
1976 86%
1980 88%
1984 89%
1988 85%
1992 83%
1996 81%
2000 81%
2004 82%
2008 79%
2012 78%
2016 55%
2020 55%
2024 64%
3/25/25, 7:10 PM
So what happened in '16, '20, and '24? Pretty dramatic reduction in voters. Young people not voting, or something going on on the island that kept people away from the polls?
REAL ID does not establish citizenship.
There may be a lot less to this than the headline suggests. Trump’s executive order seems to require proof of citizenship only for people registering to vote by mail, not for those who register in person or who register when they get or renew their driver’s license.
Section 2, which contains the proof of citizenship requirements, applies to the National Mail Voter Registration Form issued by an agency of the federal government pursuant to a statute passed by Congress.
The agency website currently has these instructions for Wisconsin:
“Wisconsin municipal clerks will accept this application only as a request for their own absentee voter mail-in registration form or for the purposes of the clerk directing that voter to the state’s online voter registration system at https://myvote.wi.gov/en-us/. You need to fill in only Box 1 and Box 2 or 3 or go directly to the MyVote website.”
Those boxes are just name and address, so instructions like that would have to change too or the new proof of citizenship “requirement” is going to be pretty toothless in Wisconsin.
The state I live in just instituted its own proof of citizenship requirement that took effect for for new registrations for the town and municipal election held this winter. It turns out that married women are the most likely to be disenfranchised. If you are using your birth certificate to prove citizenship, you also have to prove any name changes. Women who took their husband’s last name and just brought their birth certificates were sent home to find to find their wedding certificates. Not all of them came back.
I have to show my i.d to get on a plane, rent a car, get into a building, buy g*d damn sudafed but somehow to show i.d to vote is a bridge too far? We should have elections at least as secure and authentic as Mexico and all of Europe for crying out loud.
“REAL ID does not establish citizenship.”
Not as a general rule but can in the states of Vermont, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington, which issue enhanced drivers licenses that do show citizenship. Trump’s executive order is worded so only REAL IDs that indicate a person is a U.S. citizen would be accepted as proof of citizenship.
Birth Certificate would not suffice? How is this not voter suppression for the majority without a passport?
I think Elon Musk is trying to get people to pay attention to the Supreme Court election and he is not spending money in the usual way - by giving it to consultants and pollsters. Instead it goes to the people who sign a petition and that draws attention to the election.
Why does the election matter so much?
The way I understand it: The Wisconsin Supreme Court can change the boundary lines of election districts and this would be an enlightened thing to do because at present there are six republicans and two Democrats in the House of Representatives. And yet Wisconsin is an evenly divided state. So the enlightened thing to do is redraw the boundaries in view of the actual 2024 vote such that the 2026 vote in Wisconsin will give the Dems in Congress two more seats. They then will control the House and this nonsense about Congress legislating a direction which the American people want will end. The Dems will introduce impeachment articles against Trump for that is what an enlightened Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge would see is needed and that is what Crawfish will do, some say. Who knows? I sure don't. Anyhow, since the race is non-partisan it can't officially be about impeaching Trump. So each candidate Judge has accused the other of letting sex offenders run free in our glorious state whereas the actual danger is that we might end up with an enlightened judge by DC standards. (That does not mean a rogue Judge. And long dead crayfish do not stink.)
If a nine year old can collect SS, he might as well vote.
Gaslighting by corrupt bullies. Crush them in court.
When a lawyer jumps straight to some ‘evil motivation’ - rather than determining the facts of the situation - I instantly don’t believe them. Of course, we are in the Court of Public Opinion and we are the jury, to be swayed by emotion, and only emotion.
(To be fair, this is the quote that AA put forward first).
I remember when I became a citizen; one of the first things I thought about, and did, was register to vote - I had now earned that right, which I clearly did not have before hand.
I don't think he can do it, but as with many of Trump EO's the purpose is to generate a conversation and show Democrats opposing an 80/20 issue.
Is the reason it's not surprising that they say "he can't", because, it is actually pretty clear that in fact he can't?
I think showing ID to vote is a good idea. The Republicans control the house, senate, and presidency. Let them pass a law. This is a republic not a despotism. Trump cannot rule by decree.
Left Bank.
If you're married you have a marriage license. If you were born here you have a birth certificate. If you're a legal citizen you have citizenship papers.
Not everyone is as as dumb as you think they are.
Rick Hasen actually is an expert on election law, having taught and written about election law for many years. You don’t have to agree with everything or anything he says just because he’s an expert. But he does know more about election law than most people.
It’s worth noting that both the Democrats and Trump are living in the past . The most recent survey data shows that if all eligible voters had voted in 2024, Trump would have won by 5 points. See https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html. In other words, the Democrats benefit from suppressing the vote and the Republicans are hurt by surprising the vote.
*hurt by suppressing…”
And asking people to prove they are eligible to vote in this country is suppressing the vote, how?
Readering said...
REAL ID does not establish citizenship.
3/25/25, 9:33 PM
REAL ID can only be obtained by citizens and residents of the US. There are varying requirements for non-permanent residents to establish the legality of their residency.
So while REAL ID does not establish directly the legality to vote, it is quite close to this - why would a non-resident jump through the hoops and cost to obtain one, when their passport covers all requirements where a REAL ID would be used?
WaPo is also wrong that birth certificates don’t count as proof of citizenship under Trump’s order. Very clearly, they do fit under the “otherwise accompanied by” clause in the fourth catch-all category of documentation accepted:
“a valid Federal or State government-issued photo identification if such identification indicates that the applicant is a United States citizen or if such identification is otherwise accompanied by proof of United States citizenship.”
“If you're married you have a marriage license. … Not everyone is as as dumb as you think they are.”
If the wife brings a copy of her marriage license, in my state, she’s going to have to go home and get her marriage certificate.
Douglas B. Levene said...
It’s worth noting that both the Democrats and Trump are living in the past . The most recent survey data shows that if all eligible voters had voted in 2024, Trump would have won by 5 points. See https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html. In other words, the Democrats benefit from suppressing the vote and the Republicans are hurt by suppressing the vote.
How does suppressing the illegal vote help Trump vs Dems.
I bet I know.
3/26/25, 10:00 AM
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.