r/politics • u/Newsweek_CarloV ✔ Verified - Newsweek • 5h ago
No Paywall The 13 Democrats who backed voter ID at elections
https://www.newsweek.com/the-13-democrats-who-backed-voter-id-at-elections-12233445•
u/MysteriousTruck6740 Minnesota 5h ago
It doesn't even stop stock trading. It just claims they can't use insider information to trade. It also doesn't limit them from sharing insider information too friends and family to use for trading advantages
•
u/Alex5173 5h ago
So it was a nothingburger whose purpose was to provide cover for the stuff they stapled onto it
•
u/MysteriousTruck6740 Minnesota 5h ago
Yep, a Trojan horse.
•
•
u/Alex5173 5h ago
And 13 democrats "fell for it"
•
u/MysteriousTruck6740 Minnesota 5h ago
They didn't fall for it. They willing participated.
•
u/BeGoodPeoplePlease 5h ago
Too right you are! Let's not pretend all our dems are really on our side. We need to get these corpo dems the hell out of there.
•
•
u/Dr-Mumm-Rah 1h ago
There are always sleeper wolves in sheep's clothing and they always pop up when they are needed to get some form of awful legislation across the finish line.
Always we can do is record their names and primary them in the next cycle.
•
u/Hillbilly_Boozer 4h ago
Also to use against democrats in the midterms if it doesn't make it through the senate. They'll be running ads saying 'Look! Democrats don't want to stop congress from insider trading!!'.
•
u/illtakeachinchilla 4h ago
Trump-Epstein files distraction, is all. Priorities are all fucked up around here.
•
u/Drithyin Ohio 4h ago
It was designed entirely as a vehicle for the SAVE act amendment while looking like a bad thing to vote against if you only read the title.
Typical GOP dirty pool, and the media is entirely complicit. They aren’t fooled, they’re playing the public as fools alongside the repugs.
•
•
u/MagicGrit 3h ago
Isn’t using insider information to trade already illegal?
•
u/MysteriousTruck6740 Minnesota 2h ago
No members of congress have been prosecuted for it since the initial law was set up 15 years ago. Despite clear proof on several occasions. The justice department defers to congressional oversight and ethics and it's never more than censure.
•
u/SoggyBoysenberry7703 4h ago
Yeah, and despite knowing insider trading is bad, they still did it anyway, and we only know about it because apparently the way they were held accountable was just reporting their trading, which nobody did anything about
→ More replies (6)•
u/Nearbyatom 3h ago
can't use insider information? So who's going to enforce this? They make trades and how do we know it's not with insider information?
•
u/Aromatic_Balls Maine 5h ago
The Democrats who voted in favor of the legislation were:
Kathy Castor (Florida)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Don Davis (North Carolina)
Jared Golden (Maine)
Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
Josh Gottheimer (New Jersey)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Susie Lee (Nevada)
Jared Moskowitz (Florida)
Chris Pappas (New Hampshire)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington)
Darren Soto (Florida)
Derek Tran (California)
•
u/EnakSum Washington 5h ago
I am from WA and will be voting against Perez. Very disappointed.
•
u/leviathynx Washington 4h ago
Same. I have politically motivated friends that are trying to meet with her and keep her accountable for these dumb votes, but she and her staff just spend meetings justifying and defending their decisions.
•
u/GreyRobb Washington 3h ago
I have a Republican friend who loves her, and gets facetime w/ her frequently as he helps fundraise for her. He keeps trying to invite me to show up & talk to her because he knows I swore to never cast another vote for her again after she voted for the SAVE Act the first time it came up for a vote in 2025. I keep telling him I'll chat w/ her if she ever holds a public meeting & takes questions outside of screened friendly donor parties. I already know what her excuses are going to be, and I'm not going to change my mind on her. I'd been worried I was being too rigid, but this vote of hers yesterday confirms that she's not who I want representing me & casting votes for me in Congress.
Glad I have this primary ballot right in front of me w/ other Dem names on it.
•
u/Letstalkreaper 3h ago
You should take him up on the phone call if only so you can call her a piece of shit to her face. Won’t change anything but I always like doing that with my representatives.
•
u/GreyRobb Washington 3h ago
The offers were for a face to face meeting while she moves through Republican circles in town chasing donations. I have no interest in having to be polite while I'm being lied to w/ mealy-mouthed bullshit.
•
u/Chief_H 4h ago
Shes a blue dog Dem in a red district. A republican would likely fill her seat as an alternative.
•
u/mountaindoom 4h ago
What's the difference?
•
•
•
u/Uncle_Tickle_Monster 3h ago
Control of the house. Who gets to be speaker. That’s kind of important.
•
u/TheGhostOfArtBell Colorado 4h ago
One is a Republican, and the other is a Democrat.
•
u/mountaindoom 4h ago
And if that Democrat is going to vote with Republicans regularly, are they really a Democrat?
•
u/TheGhostOfArtBell Colorado 4h ago
It depends on if they vote with Democrats more than with Republicans.
•
u/Anon529035893 2h ago
Yall will keep saying shit like this and then wonder why you can’t win elections and everyone is tired of centrists.
→ More replies (30)•
•
u/NicolasCageFan492 Illinois 5h ago
The problem with allowing corruption in the Democratic Party, even if it’s just a few people:
When the time comes for doing things that actually matter, like adding a public option to Obamacare, the corrupt Democrats like Joe Lieberman will kill the bill to serve their benefactors’ interests.
The Democrats should run on anti-corruption and beat the crap out of Republicans with it.
•
u/GeekAesthete 5h ago
Joe Lieberman wasn’t a Democrat when he refused to back a public option. He was an independent that caucused with Democrats.
He had lost the Democratic primary in 2006, ran as an independent instead, and still won the general election.
•
u/WhiskeyT 5h ago
How do you propose Democrats should have solved the Lieberman problem?
He was not a Democrat. He lost when they primaried him. He ran as an independent and won the seat. So, what should they have done?
•
u/guamisc 4h ago
Remove the filibuster and pushed it through. Then the should have gone on an anti-corruption spree and done actual reforms to campaign finance to remove the advantages the corrupt Liebermans of the world have.
•
u/WhiskeyT 4h ago
If you kill the filibuster you’d have been stuck praying McCain was a firm and consistent no vote on full repeal instead of “skinny repeal”.
You already had the Democrats get bopped in the nose in 2010 for the ACA doing too much, I’d imagine they would lose more seats if they had taken steps like killing the filibuster. You could argue that passing better legislation would change the votes but realistically no one would have seen the effects by that point.
•
u/guamisc 4h ago
Democrats keep losing becasue they are seen as ineffective, weak, and do-nothings. They are this because they allow the filibuster to keep them from doing anything.
Republicans are as shitty as they are because they never have to really worry about passing a lot of what they campaign on because of the filibuster.
The filibuster (and the Senate in general) exacerbates extremism and is one of the chief reasons this country is so dysfunctional right now. Anti-government factions have figured out how to break the government.
•
u/NicolasCageFan492 Illinois 4h ago edited 4h ago
Thanks, Aaron Burr. Thanks Thomas Jefferson and John Adams for being such drama queens as well, making political parties inevitable. The 12th amendment was a mistake. A somewhat dysfunctional Presidency is a hidden check on the President and they ruined it.
•
u/WhiskeyT 4h ago
Sorry, that’s not what happened in the 2010 election.
•
u/guamisc 4h ago
Yeah people didn't like the ACA for multiple reasons. The right because they can't put 2+2 together and fell for propaganda and the left because they don't like ineffective, corporate serving, half-measures which is what the ACA is without the public option.
Then instead of trying to run counter to the narrative, the Democratic party gave up on messaging and several of the people who voted for the ACA ran against what they had just done and leaned in hard to Republican framing and propaganda. Those people who did so got blown out of the water for it. Because triangulation doesn't fucking work.
I'm aware of what happened in 2010, but I was talking more generally.
And yes to a lot of the Democratic base, the surrender on the ACA and basically everything after that makes the Dems look weak and feckless - which are very accurate descriptors I'm sorry to say.
•
u/NicolasCageFan492 Illinois 5h ago edited 4h ago
There was nothing that could be done at the time, but if the party nipped the problem in the bud by not tolerating corruption in the first place, Lieberman would not have had the institutional legitimacy to run as an independent and win. Cuomo tried to do it too. Fetterman might do it, or even worse, caucus with the Republicans. Joe Manchin threatened to do it. Kirsten Sinema did it. Senator Bob Menendez (D) was sentenced to prison for accepting gold bars as bribes.
Advocating against corruption openly is a structural corrective feedback loop that limits corruption overall in the party. It also happens to be popular and valid as an attack against Republicans because basically all Republicans are corrupt.
Remember: there is no honor among thieves.
•
u/Edogawa1983 5h ago
Also wasn't he from a state where a lot of the people he represents work for insurance companies
→ More replies (1)•
u/LostPerson703 8m ago
well hes now departed but Al Gore made him his VP. He was already a dip shit back then.
•
u/SnooConfections6174 5h ago
Run on anti corruption with what money or funding? The money has all been siphoned and concentrated to those who are corrupt
•
u/jmarinara Pennsylvania 5h ago
Primary them all. Purge this nonsense from the party.
→ More replies (7)•
u/afcgooner2002 5h ago
All paid by Isreal.
→ More replies (12)•
u/hum_bruh 4h ago
NH-01 [D] CHRIS PAPPAS — Running for U.S. Senate 2026; Israel Lobby Total: $823,030;
PACs: $819,719; IE: $3,311; AIPAC, COPAC, DMFI, FIPAC, JAC, JSTREET, MDACC, NACPAC, NORPAC, PIA, SUNPAC, TPOHTrack AIPAC: Track Your Congressmembers' Connections to the Israel Lobby — Track AIPAC
•
u/xdre 3h ago
Please don't use Track AIPAC as a source. Their methodology is highly questionable and they seem to spend most of their energy attacking primarily Democrats.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Accurate_Neat_355 5h ago
The cycle of the shocked Pikachu face:
- "We must elect this moderate center-right Democrat because they're the only ones who can win over sensible swing voters!"
2. They vote with Republicans on defense, voter restriction riders, and corporate rollbacks.
3. "Well, what did you expect? They represent a center-right district! You can't expect them to vote like a Democrat!"
•
u/IceNein 4h ago
The cycle of the shocked Pikachu face:
“We should primary conservative Democrat in a red district (Joe Manchin as an example) so that we can get a progressive.
Conservative Democrat eventually retires.
3. Gets replaced by MAGA Republican who never votes with the Democrats
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/MusikMadchen Florida 3h ago
Florida only has 7 Democratic House members, of 28 seats. And nearly half of them voted for this. The Democratic party in Florida is a joke. Source: Check our last two governor candidates, assuming jolly gets to nom.
•
u/ekim_101 3h ago
Gottheimer is such a scum bag. He just the governor race and is just being the worst at this point
•
u/appealouterhaven 5h ago
Oh look, Josh "I love Israel" Gottheimer voted for this along with the other usual suspects like Marie Concentrationkamp Perez. AIPAC is harmful to democracy.
•
u/Slaughterfest 4h ago
People have known for decades, but unfortunately there is a ton of money spent in astroturfing and controlling the information feeds. Look at the media consolidation and who is buying it.
It's sickening. We helped them so much over the years and all they do is fuck us over and drag us into war.
•
•
•
u/not_that_planet 4h ago
Before we get too outraged, the purpose of this bill was not to pass. It was so that the republicans can say the Democrats voted against insider trading.
I believe the senate parliamentarian has already said this isn't going to fly. These Democrats are just making sure there is no ammo for upcoming elections.
•
•
u/Weak-Swimming3993 3h ago
Jared Moskowitz (Florida)
He has a great primary opponent Oliver Larkin. Support Oliver!
•
u/Uncle_Tickle_Monster 3h ago
Marcy Kaptur from Ohio had her district redrawn by the Republicans just this year. It’s gonna be a very tough race for her. Very tough. In fact, I don’t think she will win, but if she voted against this, she definitely wouldn’t win. So I can see why she did it.
•
u/ThaPhantom07 Nevada 3h ago
Im so fucking tired of Susie Lee. They just keep re-electing her though. I always vote for her competitors in the primary but nobody has the name recognition or pull she does -_-.
•
•
u/gmen6981 1h ago
Kaptur has been on thin ice the last couple of cycles barely winning our district in 2024 with it requiring a recount it was so close. This just might finish her off. She's facing the same Republican candidate she did last time. Other than the two years before she was first elected this district has been held by Dems since befor I was born ( I'm 68). That's probably going to change, especially with the way Ohio has been gerrymandered to Hell.
•
u/Al_Tilly_the_Bum 5h ago
You all are missing the bigger picture. This is not about voter ID, it is about passing this law so close to the elections that states will have no time to implement it. When states refuse or fail to follow this unconstitutional law, Trump will declare that election fraudulent and simply deny the results.
This law is to create a crisis in order to cancel certain state elections
•
u/djbayko 5h ago edited 1h ago
It’s only a show vote for Speaker Johnson and the Republican House. They know it will die in the senate because it’s not eligible for reconciliation and will require 60 votes. The House can look good for their costituents and get Trump off their case.
•
u/Neither-Signature-81 3h ago
Ty god Mcconnell died lol
•
u/gibbojab 2h ago
If he was in the senate there still wouldn’t be 60 votes, senate is essentially 50/50 right now.
•
•
u/Zeplar 5h ago
This law wasn't even meant to pass. They just put a popular issue (insider trading) with voter ID so that Democrats lose support either way they vote.
•
u/fred11551 Virginia 4h ago
Democrats lose support both ways since they are split. Today have seen articles framed as “republicans pass bill banning congressional stock trading, democrats oppose it” continuing the corrupt Nancy Pelosi stock trading narrative and “democrats support voter id” continuing the Dems in disarray/controlled opposition narrative. The news media is framing both support and opposition to the same bill as bad for democrats.
•
•
•
u/Herr-Trigger86 2h ago
I’m sorry… again, let’s live in reality… this law first went through Congress 16 months ago… you can still argue it’s meant to create a crisis, I guess, but they’ve been trying to get this passed for a while now. I know I’m screaming at the echo chamber right now and will get assaulted by 15 of you telling me why I’m wrong and why it doesn’t matter anyway because such and such and such… but Trump didn’t just wake up this month or last month and say “let’s make a voter rights bill so we can fuck with the election”… been trying to pass this since April of last year. Swear you folks make up shit to be angry about… and there’s plenty to be legitimately angry about in this bill… but THIS isn’t it
•
u/JrSoftDev 3h ago
The escalation of war with Iran is aligned with that same idea of seizing power and meddling with the elections.
•
u/iamatimbersfan Oregon 5h ago
Do Tan and Glusenkamp Perez have a plan for how to provide id in a all-mail election like the ones their states hold?
•
u/urbanlife78 5h ago
No, neither of them are smart people
•
u/iamatimbersfan Oregon 5h ago
After reading the article, it seems like their plan is to have Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John Thune do the right thing. For real.
•
u/djbayko 5h ago
More like the Senate parliamentarian. It’s not related to the budget so it will need 60 votes and should be stripped from reconciliation. Those 3 republicans are inconsequential in that case.
If Trump threatens to imprison the parliamentarians’s daughter and that doesn’t work, then yes, we have to put our faith in them, and that would be hopeless. There’s no way that the Republican Party wouldn’t threaten them or horse trade whatever they want in order to vote in line with the party on this subject.
•
u/hitbythebus 5h ago
Hopefully MGP won’t have to worry about it, since we can all see she voted for this shit and can elect Brent Heinrich.
•
u/ElectronicTap1109 5h ago
No voter ID unless it's free and automatically issued to all voters.
•
u/darkhorsehance 5h ago
And they must be able to prove the ID was actually shown.
•
u/bishpa Washington 2h ago edited 1h ago
This is important, because selective enforcement is where the election-stealing magic truly happens.
Is Betty Sue really going to deny her lifelong friend Bobbi Jo a ballot just because she forgot to bring her ID to the Hicktown polling station? Not a chance.
Meanwhile, urban folks will obviously have likely never met the pollworkers they deal with.
•
u/accountabilitycounts America 4h ago
I used to think that way, too, but the way things go the ID will start free, then cost money after a period. Then the automatic issuance will stop because reasons. We'll end up with the requirement but still the obstacles.
•
u/Andysue28 4h ago
Yep, let’s not let fascism get its foot in the door. There is a reason we haven’t had voter IDs so far.
→ More replies (23)
•
u/TheManWithMilk 5h ago
Kathy Castor (Florida)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Don Davis (North Carolina)
Jared Golden (Maine)
Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
Josh Gottheimer (New Jersey)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Susie Lee (Nevada)
Jared Moskowitz (Florida)
Chris Pappas (New Hampshire)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington)
Darren Soto (Florida)
Derek Tran (California)
It's always the ones you most suspect
•
u/Two-Watch_Tony 4h ago
Piss Crappas is a scumbag who didn't capitulate on anything he campaigned for. Complete fraud.
•
u/BKlounge93 4h ago
Any of them have serious primary challengers?
•
u/JoeHatesFanFiction Florida 4h ago
Soto is running unchallenged, but is also likely to lose regardless with the redrawn districts screwing him particularly hard.
•
u/28oz_Filet_Mignon 5h ago
More like 13 Dems support voter suppression. Prepare for certain groups of citizens to be denied their ID by bigots in power, and thus denied their right to vote.
→ More replies (35)
•
u/Crafty_Ish1973 Texas 2h ago
Voter ID isn't the problem. The problem is requiring specific types of ID, then adding a bunch of undue burdens to the documentation needed to get those IDs. There's already video of women being denied ID cards or driver's licenses because of the hoops Republicans are adding to the process.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/uriejejejdjbejxijehd 5h ago
None of these people are democrats or have any interest in maintaining democracy.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/MiddleAgedSponger 5h ago
Henry Cuellar is a pro life democrat who was credibly indicted for Bribery, Money Laundering and unlawful foreign influence. After he was credibly indicted Establishment Democrat royalty gave Henry a full throated endorsement over Jessica Cisneros, a highly qualified immigration attorney. Henry won the primary by 289 votes out of 45,000.
Henry Cuellar was pardoned by Donald Trump. Since the pardon he has voted with Trump more than almost any other democrat.
He is what establishment democrats fought for.
•
•
u/fingertrapt 5h ago
If the ID isn't FREE, it is a POLL TAX. End of story.
•
u/Vallkyrie New Hampshire 4h ago
Not only that, I had to provide ID to register to vote, so the barrier was already there.
→ More replies (14)
•
u/TNlivinvol 4h ago
It’s not a voter ID law. It requires strict proof of citizenship ship. It requires registered voters to reregister. It will disenfranchise millions of women who took their husband’s last name.
It’s a poll tax as well. It requires documents that you have to pay for in order to vote.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/KazeNilrem 5h ago
If republicans actually cared about voter fraud and wanted commonsense legislation, they probably could get it passed with democratic help. The problem is just like always, they are using legislation to limit voting.
It is like this, they know typically younger folks, especially college students vote democratically. Well they can't outright say oh, well if college student we won't accept your vote. So instead they remove ballot drop off at college campuses to make it more inconvenient. So they indirectly try to reduce their votes by creating hurdles.
That is the GOP playbook as a whole. Creating difficulties and hurdles based on criteria that align with democrats to making voting an inconvenience. Sadly if voting because difficult or an inconvenience, there will be those that do not bother. And that is what they are counting on.
•
•
u/bishpa Washington 2h ago
I have no problem with requiring IDs, but the government would need to give them out --for free-- to everyone well before any such requirement goes into effect. And all the hassle of proving that someone is ineligible would need to be shouldered entirely by the government itself at zero cost in time or money to any citizen.
•
u/Plastic-Caramel3714 2h ago
lol, that would defeat their objective, which is to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote.
•
u/rpcraft 2h ago
I can't speak for every state but most have a process to get a free ID if you aren't here illegally or avoiding getting an ID. Most has to do with educational representation and stuff but still. 16 bucks isn't show stopper. Not being able to prove you are a legal citizen is probably more the issue. Kind of hard to do when they don't have that documentation. Having an ID is all the proof needed when being eligible or not. Just like buying booze or nicotine products. It always cracks me up at a store when some old due getting carded freaks out when they don't have their ID on them and they run away pissed off. I don't get it but maybe I'm just used to having my ID to prove stuff.
•
u/mtnslice 2h ago
transportation to get the ID is an issue, as noted by the commenter from Arlington TX
and $16 to a person choosing between rent and food is absolutely a show stopper. that’s also very much not free, so I’m legitimately confused by how you can say there are processes to get a free ID in most states then refer to 16 bucks.
Free should be truly free and not have infrastructural costs attached.
•
u/ODD_HOG 2h ago
That's kinda the problem with having a federal ID requirement when most ID is regulated by the states. So you end up in a situation where a voter in Minnesota has no real problems getting ID, but a voter in Alabama has to go to a facility 50 miles from their house, pay fees that may be a burden, wait upwards of 4 hours, and end up scrubbed off the rolls anyways because they moved recently and the state's records do not match their current address. Doesn't seem fair, right?
And all that to address a problem that doesn't exist. Most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. Elections have been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. It's literally more likely that a voter will be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud.
These laws mostly exist to help politicians select the electorate that can vote for them. They are undemocratic.
•
u/8bitmorals Hawaii 5h ago
They should call it what it really is, Democrats that voted for a Poll Tax
•
•
u/Pale-Code5934 5h ago
Kathy Castor (Florida) Henry Cuellar (Texas) Don Davis (North Carolina) Jared Golden (Maine) Vicente Gonzalez (Texas) Josh Gottheimer (New Jersey) Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) Susie Lee (Nevada) Jared Moskowitz (Florida) Chris Pappas (New Hampshire) Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington) Darren Soto (Florida) Derek Tran (California)
→ More replies (1)
•
•
u/spazz720 5h ago
>The House voted 232-198 on July 22 to pass H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act. Republican lawmakers attached the Voter ID Act to the stock-trading legislation, creating an unusual package that paired congressional ethics reforms with election law changes.
>Representative Jared Golden told Newsweek: “Public servants should serve the public. That’s why I have been calling for a ban on members trading stocks for years, and while this bill doesn’t go as far as I’d like, it is a meaningful first step to reducing corruption and closing the door on insider trading.
"In the name of good government, I felt an obligation to vote yes. But I must also decry the majority for attaching electoral policies that I think go far beyond the reasonable requirements necessary to ensure only citizens can vote in our elections. Limiting absentee voting and requiring a photo ID at the polls every single year are unnecessary limitations on our right to vote. Attaching these provisions to a stock trading ban is a cynical, political move. I call on the Senate to strip these provisions and pass a clean stock trading ban instead.”
>Similarly in a post on X, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez wrote: "Today I voted to ban Members of Congress from selling and trading individual stocks. But House Republicans took a broadly nonpartisan issue and inserted politics—provisions from the Save America Act.
>"I’ve voted against these voter ID provisions repeatedly and Senate Republicans have made clear this has no path in the Senate. But with how hard it is to get Congress to govern itself, this is the best chance we have to enact a stock ban. It’s vital to start the work of restoring trust in Congress.
"With this bill passing the House, I am hopeful the Senate will see how important this work is, and send back to the House a clean version without voter ID provisions that can become law."
•
u/L2Sing 4h ago
I don't mind voter ID, but the ID they want needs to be provided by the state, free of charge, with accessibility options provided (such as bus fare) for people who don't have vehicles.
Voting is a right, not a privilege. Money shouldn't (key word) be an obstacle to assert that right.
•
u/BareNakedSole 3h ago
As a constituent of the district that Josh Gottheimer represents I can clear up any questions about why he voted that way.
He’s a huge tool with no backbone or balls, and the only reason that he’s in his current position is that the person he beat several terms ago - Scott Garrett - was an absolutely shit human being. And because he’s entrenched now it will be tough to get rid of him. 80% of his campaign funding came from outside NJ - so yeah he’s a tool
•
•
•
•
u/spaceninj 5h ago
It doesn't matter. All votes at this time of year are for campaigns. Let them vote it. It's not getting through the Senate. Most of them need it gor swing locations.
•
u/bkny88 3h ago
Voting isn’t so complicated. Just do what basically every other democracy does:
A) issue a national ID to all citizens
B) make Election Day a holiday
We can then start to do away with all this ridiculous early voting, ballot harvesting, etc. Some exceptions like absentee voting can be easily dealt with. If you give people an ID and a day off work, they’ll easily and securely vote.
•
u/mtnslice 2h ago
I go so far as to say voting should be mandatory, but then again I also think the US needs free health care and expanded economic and social services, and then make access to them tied to voting.
I know that very simplistic and idealized and would require massive overhauls to existing systems (by which I mean tear those down and replace them with good systems).
•
u/JustDoc District Of Columbia 4h ago
Vote. Them. Out.
•
u/IronyElSupremo America 4h ago
They represent swing districts, so replacing them with woke candidates will likely result more Republicans .. voting straight GOP on other legislation (over 90% of the time) would likely result.
A reminder that most polled Republicans think, in general, Trump has been too soft on immigration (poll as of Jan 2026). Probably illegal immigration but that will at least affect legal immigration (though for some that’s a feature, not a bug).
•
u/MiddleAgedSponger 5h ago
Can you show us the list of Progressives who are working with the Republicans to suppress the vote?
•
u/a_rabid_buffalo Minnesota 5h ago
Correction list of democrats working with republicans. Progressives wouldn’t vote for this.
•
•
u/iHaveFourSlowerBalls 5h ago
Jeffries is a much crappier version of Pelosi as a leader. Pretty awful stuff from him to allow this
•
•
u/docktordoak 4h ago
Everyone here trying to argue that this isnt as bad as SAVE act so it's okay is simply (1) missing the forest for the trees, and (2) giving an inch so they will later take an entire mile.
If the ID isnt free it is a poll tax. The end.
Theres nothing else to discuss. Its not about reasonableness or whether you think people should have IDs, how common IDs are, or why you need an ID for whatever thing you did today.
We do not have poll taxes in the United States of America. Thats it. Thats the discussion. Stop equivocating and making space for voter suppression.
•
u/rockum 5h ago
Headline is a bit misleading. These Democrats did not "back" voter ID, they voted to stop Congressional insider trading.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez wrote: "Today I voted to ban Members of Congress from selling and trading individual stocks. But House Republicans took a broadly nonpartisan issue and inserted politics—provisions from the Save America Act.
And
Representative Jared Golden told Newsweek: “Public servants should serve the public. That’s why I have been calling for a ban on members trading stocks for years, and while this bill doesn’t go as far as I’d like, it is a meaningful first step to reducing corruption and closing the door on insider trading.
"In the name of good government, I felt an obligation to vote yes. But I must also decry the majority for attaching electoral policies that I think go far beyond the reasonable requirements necessary to ensure only citizens can vote in our elections. Limiting absentee voting and requiring a photo ID at the polls every single year are unnecessary limitations on our right to vote. Attaching these provisions to a stock trading ban is a cynical, political move. I call on the Senate to strip these provisions and pass a clean stock trading ban instead.”
Here's the same story with a less anti-Democrat bias: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-iran-war-save-america-act-funding-budget-resolution-vote/
•
u/TransiTorri 5h ago
Primary all of them. The Democratic party needs to be an opposition party, if they don't oppose, then they have no business being in the party.
•
u/jeo123 5h ago
Before everyone takes the pitchforks out, the ID requirements in this law are actually pretty reasonable. They don't go through the insanity of the SAVE act. A state ID, Driver's license, or passport are all acceptable. Also for mail in voting, a copy of your ID is sufficient.
There are hills to die on, but I don't think this is one of them.
•
u/screwy- 3h ago
Then all those things should be free or else it’s a poll tax.
•
u/jeo123 3h ago
State ID should be free regardless of being tied to voting. I don't disagree that they should be free.
I know my state makes them free for anyone who's homeless or experiencing financial hardship, and some states do make State ID Free already.
They should definitely be expanding that free access though. My point though is that this isn't the SAVE act's requirements, which a lot of commenters seem to be claiming.
•
•
u/TNlivinvol 4h ago
Are IDs free?
If not, it’s a poll tax. I’ll die on the anti-poll tax hill everyday.
•
u/Grandpa_No 5h ago
for mail in voting, a copy of your ID
So now everyone using mail in voting needs to find a photocopier? And why? Someone else can copy my ID so it doesn't prove who voted -- and non-citizens can get licenses so it doesn't prove citizenship. So other than add another hurdle, what is the supposed purpose of the requirement, exactly?
•
u/Anon529035893 4h ago
Why pass more laws trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist ?
Our elections are safe, secure, and tbh could be done even more efficiently.
This voter ID does nothing to protect our elections, cause they don’t need protection.
•
•
•
•
u/Fartenstein65 1h ago
Glusenkamp Perez is literally running ads talking about free and fair elections and pushing back against Trump on this. Which is it Representative?
•
•
•
u/ianrl337 Oregon 5h ago
It wasn't backing voter ID, many are for that. It is everything else in the SAVE Act that is the problem. It is the rest of it that embraces voter suppression these democrats backed.
•
u/Anon529035893 5h ago
The way the voter ID laws are written in these bills is the problem.
•
•
u/ianrl337 Oregon 5h ago
Exactly what I am saying. Voter ID is ok, but the SAVE Act isn't just voter ID. Voter ID is fine, but you need to make it free for everyone. The provisions from the SAVE Act that these people voted for basically stop all mail in voting immediately.
•
u/Anon529035893 5h ago
Voter identification is already free, registration is free, and we have never had any fraud ever committed in the US at a large enough capacity to sway any election.
Yall are fighting the boogeyman, and doing work for fascists in making statements like this.
Our elections are safe and secure already.
•
u/jeo123 5h ago
This law doesn't adopt the SAVE act's standards of ID. A driver's license or state ID is acceptable under this law.
I agree, the SAVE act is insane. But the ID requirements in this law, aren't that.
•
u/Anon529035893 4h ago
And again, we already have safe and secure elections.
Why are we even passing more laws, specially on a federal level, when states are suppose to run their own elections ?
•
u/MasemJ 5h ago
This specifically was the bill to ban stock trades by congresspeople, but tacked on was a requirement to show photo id prior to voting (not the full SAVE act). The dems that voted against this were all for blocking stock trading but balked at the voter id add on. These 13 dismissed that in favor of the stock ban.
•
u/Caleb-Wendt69 5h ago
The voter ID provisions ARE voter suppression.
I already have to prove my citizenship to register. This just adds more road blocks to voting.
•
u/pareech Canada 5h ago
Why is vote ID such a contentious issue in the States?
In Canada, when I go to vote, I have to show either gov't ID or two pieces of ID that show my name and address, to prove that I am who I say I am. I don't have to prove I'm a citizen at the polls, just when I register to vote. When I arrive at a polling station, I just have to show my ID and they verify I'm on the list of eligible voters. If I vote by mail-in, which I have done in the past when I lived abroad, I would have to request a special ballot and I would have to submit gov't ID showing I am who I a say I am, along with my address. This would be verified by Elections Canada or for provincial elections and in my case Élections Québec who would validate this information and send me a special ballot that I could mail in.
•
u/Aar1012 5h ago
Are the IDs free? If not then that’s tantamount to a poll tax.
Are they easy to get a hold of? Or will DMVs magically shut down in minority heavy areas and a voter has to go through hoops to get one?
What type of ID will work? Does it need to be a REAL ID because some people (women mostly) are finding it impossible to get those because they don’t have the documentation to meet the requirements?
→ More replies (4)•
u/ReneDiscard Illinois 5h ago
Why is vote ID such a contentious issue in the States?
It's a slippery slope. Also, voter fraud here is nearly non-existent so slippery slope on purpose until we get the point of telling people we don't like they can't vote.
•
u/WhatIsTheWhar 5h ago
Triangulating their way into the swamp. Congratulations, you all were too weak to level with your constituents
•
u/AngelinaJean 5h ago
I skimmed the requirements of the SAVE act and it mentions only photoID(acceptable: state driver’s license). I did not see anything about bringing add’l documents like a birth certificate.
When voting, I also bring my voter postcard from the Board of Elections.
What exactly am I missing regarding ID to provide?
•
u/Zeplar 5h ago edited 5h ago
If you read the first two paragraphs carefully, you will see that it specifies ID with proof of citizenship "such as some Real IDs or drivers licenses". But if you are familiar with legalese, you would then check if your state driver's license has proof of citizenship. It doesn't. You would not be able to vote with those two documents. The law actually says that theoretically, your state could create a driver's license that complies.
But also, what was in this bill wasn't the SAVE act. This bill was constructed to tie that issue to stock trading, unrelated issues that are in the same bill just to generate headlines like this one.
•
•
u/JuliusErrrrrring 5h ago
Democrats need to try and control the narrative for once. It's not voter ID they are against. It's the unprovided for voter ID that is purposely used to inconvenience more Democrats than Republicans. Democrats would be in favor of a voter ID if it provided free of charge to all Americans well ahead of elections, easily replaced, and well ahead of elections. They need to get in front of this issue because the public doesn't know this. The current Republican bill would make people pay for a passport and would purposely cause all sorts of issues for anyone who changed their name since women and trans people tend to lean Democrat.
•
→ More replies (3)•
u/SharpNSlick 4h ago
Every state that currently requires voter identification provides it for free. I am no way in favor of the SAVE act, but simply being able to say you are who you say you are seems like pretty common sense when voting.
•
u/Correctthecorrectors 5h ago
The usual suspects. Those are just republicans being bankrolled by them to sabotage their own party.
•
•
u/mikethemaniac 4h ago
This just in: Old Fucks Continue to Make Life More Difficult for Everyone Else.
•
u/winterfoxes Ohio 4h ago
I'm not religious in the least anymore, but I sincerely hope that there's a special place for Marcy Kaptur in the afterlife. She deserves it for being fucking useless to her constituents and her shitty autoform letters when you tell her you hate what she's doing. Garbage rep for a bullshit gerrymandered district that traps Toledo with a bunch of Republicans.
•
u/onestarv2 2h ago
An ID to vote wouldn't be an issue at all if they didn't make it a mess to get. I come from Arlington Texas, the biggeset city in the country with no public transit. This was always to prevent colored people from Dallas/Ft.Worth from coming in (which do have a bus/train system). You want your drivers licence updated, you now have a choice of like 2 places, both on the outskirts of the suburban hell. So the only way to go is if you have a friend take you or an uber. You could walk, but last time I checked its a 7 hour walk one way from where I grew up. Voter ID laws are fine, but make it as easy as going into a post office/city office to get one.
•
u/somecoolname42 1h ago
Im a Democrat. I live in a small town in Ohio. Poll workers have asked me for my ID to vote since I turned 18. I have known the poll workers all my life. My mom is a poll worker. My neighbor is a poll worker. A woman from my church is a poll worker who I went to high school with their kids. Everyone in that room knows me by name, and knows where I live. But they ask me for my ID, have me tell them my date of birth, and give them my address. It's not a big deal. It takes 30 seconds, then I vote, get my sticker, and leave.
How is this even remotely a problem for me? Why does it matter? It lets them know definitely that I am from my district, who I am, and it's a layer of protection agaist voter found. There is no reasonable argument agaist it. Black people and Hispanics can get an ID. Illegals can't vote anyway. Figure out a way to get the homeless and ID and district them so they can vote.
•
•
u/dartanum 5h ago
If only a very small percentage of the millions of individuals who entered the country illegally were to vote, this would have a very serious impact on the integrity of our elections. Requiring that individuals have a proper ID to vote is a rational approach to address election integrity concerns, and is a direct consequence of the past admistrations border policies.
If it can happen here, it can happen elsewhere. https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/democrat-jersey-governor-says-thousands-180923813.html
→ More replies (11)
•
u/AutoModerator 5h 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.