First thing is that it is up to states to administer elections and make their own rules and laws. Given the record of the current president, many people and states are not very interested in giving up power over that to the federal government, who keeps trying to claim and take control of state-run elections anyway.

In the US, people are not automatically given IDs or driver licenses. They require a fair amount of time, other paperwork, and fees to procure. Therefore having one is automatically more likely for people with more time (retired, better job, etc), money, organized lives and physical ability since you must show up in person.

By organized lives, I mean people of higher economic status are more likely to live in stable situations where they have social security cards, passports and birth certificates easily accessible. If you don’t have those documents - perhaps they were lost in a move, never given by parents, never applied for - it costs a fair bit to get them. A replacement SS card is free. A duplicate birth certificate can be $20-30. The average charge for an ID/DL is about $40. A copy of a marriage or divorce certificate is typically $10-40. A replacing naturalization certificate is almost $1,400.

Getting these documents could take weeks and an amount of money that’s trivial to higher income people and significant to lower income people. Like voting, if you have a white collar job, it’s fairly easy to take time out to do it. If you have an hourly job with little flexibility and/or lack a vehicle, it’s much more difficult to go to government offices to obtain this paperwork. Some might ask, why would someone not have at least a driver’s license or ID? Perhaps it expired, was lost, they moved and never got the paperwork, or couldn’t afford the fees and time. Younger people and non-white people are known to be less likely to have the documents that would be required. It also creates barriers for armed service members.

Another aspect is the bill says women must prove their citizenship with documents that match their original, non-married name. So if you have a birth certificate that says Jane Doe but all your other documents say Jane Smith, since it was changed after marriage, that won’t work. The requirements would also make it harder for trans people to register.

Next, there’s the changes to registration process. Currently 42 states allow you to register online or by mail. That would be nixed. Voters would have to show up at an office in person to register. Currently signing under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen is considered adequate, along with proof of residency and documents like an ID (which required the aforementioned birth certificate etc to get in the first place). Under the proposed law, a drivers license would not be adequate in 90% of states. In some areas, voters must travel over 200 miles to get to an election office in person.

Another question is why this would be necessary. While Republicans have been claiming that non-citizens voting in federal elections is a major problem, there is no actual evidence of that. In fact, data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says 0.04% of voters might be ineligible, and that’s considered likely an overcount. When states have tried similar laws in the past, it ended up disenfranchising far, far more legitimate voters than the number of illegitimate voters thwarted.

So what’s the actual effect of this? Mainly, to make it harder for poor people and women to vote, two groups who are more likely to vote for Democrats.

The US has about 3.8 million valid citizens with no official records, and about another 21 million that would need to jump through very difficult hoops in order to obtain their documentation. It’s called the Burned Counties phenomenon, because records were kept at the county level, that had a court house burned down. Or flooded, or destroyed by unrest. We like variety in our destruction.

As will come to no surprise, the majority of those affected, are minorities who vote for Democrats. So the laws being proposed are designed around blocking them from voting, not getting them documented to vote.

We don’t have a free national ID, even state IDs cost money. There should be no money involved in the right to vote.

EU countries try really hard to register all births with the proper documents that then lead you to get an ID or passport later on in life. Everybody is used to needing an ID, being able to show it upon request, and using it to vote as well. Most people are just fine with all of that.

The US doesn’t follow this logic. For example, a person born earlier the last century in the deep south may not have received a birth certificate. The birth could have just been written into the household bible. So when you require a voter ID and to get that you need a birth certificate, you have eliminated a possible voter. And what if I added this bible practice was done predominantly in African-American communities. There will be other loopholes where people will be required to produce paperwork they can only acquire after a Kafkaesque tour through various administrations. Funny enough a lot of them affecting minority communities first and foremost.

If you want to do a proper voter ID, you need to first convince the people this isn’t government overreach (good luck). And then make sure everybody has an equal chance to get this ID, e.g. by issuing missing birth certificates. The laws that generally want to introduce this do not care about equal chances. They tend to target voters who vote for the other side.

If the government wants to make everyone have an certain ID to vote, it has to be the governments responsibility to actively make sure everyone gets that ID without any cost or hassle. We know that’s not what will happen because the whole point of this is that the Republicans want to disenfranchise certain people.

The knockdown problem is that creating such an ID is a mere half a thought from “vere are your papers?” That’s basically a guaranteed outcome.

You have to understand the roots of the voting registration rules here to understand it better. The whole point of them was to keep black men and all women from having a vote.

That’s it - that is what they were for. So every permutation since is built on that framework, it’s always "the wrong people might vote’ instead of “we want to make sure everyone votes”.

So voter ID is not a bad idea on its face, you go in to vote the poll workers need to know who you are, right? The lady who sits across from me at work is old, she went to renew her driver’s license in February this year and they said no, your current license (that they issued) is not enough, there are new requirements - we need your birth certificate, your first marriage license, your divorce paperwork, your second marriage license, your divorce decree from that marriage, then we can renew your license.

She just managed to get all this by mid-October, so she did get through in time to vote but what the fuck? She had to reach out to 3 states and getting a birth certificate from like the 1950s is not easy. Why is it not easy to renew? Because the laws were written to prevent voting not to enable it.

You LITERALLY cannot register to vote without already being a fucking citizen.

The ID thing is a complete non issue bullshit smoke screen to disenfranchise voters.

Not yelling at you at all, but this issue makes my blood boil.

The problem is primarily that it falsely validates a fascist conspiracy theory which is being weaponized to dismantle western democracy. That’s really most of it.

It would only let people with their names matching their birth certificates vote, disenfranchising trans people and married women that have taken their spouse’s name.

I think a lot of it comes down to classism. While it’s probably unimaginable in a developed nation, it’s entirely possible for underprivileged citizens in the United States not to have a government issued ID. The hurdles to get one are also disproportionately greater for those individuals.

It is largely seen as a form of voter suppression. And considering our history of weaponized poll and literacy testing, that’s understandable.

Before you can vote, you have to “register” to vote. When you do this, you need to prove you’re a U.S. citizen. Usually providing a birth certificate, or passport, military id, idk everything.

My understanding was that the name you were registering to vote with had to match the document you were using. But if you got married then often times the women would have a different last name and now it doesn’t match your birth certificate. Normally you’d just have to prove you got married too but this new law would say no, you have to have the exact name or you can’t vote.

Since women typically take the man’s last name, it would effectively mean any married women registering to vote would not be allowed. And since the bill is worded confusingly on purpose, many women would not even realize this until they went to register to vote, and told they couldn’t because of their new last name.

Not an american, but I’ve seen this asked before and from what I remember a lot of it was about what counts as valid ID (as the US doesn’t have national ID cards like we do in EU countries), and the potential that the ID required would purposely be something hard to get to various communities that are discriminated against, in an attempt to “rig the vote” as it were

Someone from the US probably has a better phrased explanation tho

Well, it would disenfranchise a whole lot of people due to difficult to obtain (expensive, time consuming) on short notice. If it passed today many would not be able to vote in an upcoming election. It would specifically impact a large block of voters who tend to lean left. Oh, and we already use perfectly fine government issued IDs. This is just an extra hoop for poor people and women. In other words, not needed, voter suppression, targeted, and a poll tax.

It’s a whole can of worms. For the golden standards of what counts as an ID, getting a State ID, Driver’s License, or Passport can be hard. My first time getting a passport was an over 6 month long journey and was hell, getting my Driver’s License was a long journey and cost me like $30, and then what counts as a good form of ID?

Back when I lived in Texas, my license for Concealed Carry worked as a valid form of ID but my Student ID when I was attending Uni there wasn’t. So why is a CCL a valid form of ID but a student ID isn’t?

My opposition to Voter ID is because of this, it would be handled on a state level and not the federal level. This would disenfranchise a lot of people who might not be able to get a valid form of ID.

DMVs are slow and in many areas hard to get to. I know people who live like 100 miles away from any and that is where you get your either State ID or Driver’s License. How are they supposed to prove who they are?

I would support a Voter ID law if and only if we had a free and easily accesible way to get a form of identification.

Short answer: The USA has no national ID.

Long answer: instead we have a patchwork of more than 50 different regional IDs (between states, territories, etc.), alongside a half-dozen ill-suited federal IDs, and numerous public and private institutional IDs (like university IDs or Costco cards).

For the most part, all of these cost money. Due to inconsistent systems and sometimes unclear requirements, the people who are most likely to be disenfranchised are also the most vulnerable. Most state IDs require proof of residence like a utility bill, which can be impossible if you are homeless or off-grid. If you are disabled, you may not qualify for a driver’s license (the most common state ID). If you are trans (or a married woman), you may have paperwork with conflicting legal names.

If you are reasonably well-off, on the other hand, you can afford to pay a private company to facilitate your passport application. The US passport is basically the gold standard of national ID, but fewer than half of Americans have one. It requires a certain amount of wealth to even need one, and the expense (money, time, etc) is not trivial.