It should be noted that the specific poll tax that was declared unconstitutional back in the 60s would be - adjusted for inflation - less than $15 today.
I was going to raise this issue. Doesn't the cost of these documents constitute an illegal poll tax? Also, if you are adding up costs, don't forget to ad in the cost of a notarized copy of the birth certificate for your passport application, assuming you know where to apply. Republican proposals all are designed for those with disposable income, not for the rural or urban poor who already have to juggle food, housing and medical care.
I'm sure a naturalization certiificate would suffice, also. But, lo and behold, if you can't find yours, it will cost you around $600 to get a replacement. You'd also better apply now for the November 2026 election, because even before all the government employee terminations it took a friend of mine at least 5 months to get her replacement.
The Save Act, if the Senate passes it, is the equivalent of a poll tax. The documentation needed to recover or receive the right to vote costs money and takes time. This act would further discriminate against people who, for what ever reason, aren't able to come up with documentation that satisfies the order.
Thank you for this piece Norm Ornstein. The only fraud here is the SAVE Act itself and the contortions that the GOP MAGA crowd are executing to try to justify it.
I've always said that voter ID is fine as long as the government does whatever is necessary to get the required ID for any citizen who needs it--at no cost to the citizen. And the person retains the right to vote while the ID is in process.
It is already the case (and always has been) that only U.S. citizens vote. Study after study confirms that this is indeed the case. Voter fraud is essentially non-existent, as has been laid outover and over again, and even in this post.
That depends on the state, usually a birth certificate, but you seem to be intentionally missing the point. Stop pretending that non-citizens voting has EVER been an issue. The sole purpose of the SAVE Act is voter suppression and disenfranchisement, as is PROVEN by the fact that it won't accept a Real ID, which requires a birth certificate and other proof of identity to get. Real ID was supposed to be the be-all and end-all of IDs, required for entry into federal buildings and flights, but now it's not good enough? And over half of American adults do not have a passport.
It should be noted that the specific poll tax that was declared unconstitutional back in the 60s would be - adjusted for inflation - less than $15 today.
I was going to raise this issue. Doesn't the cost of these documents constitute an illegal poll tax? Also, if you are adding up costs, don't forget to ad in the cost of a notarized copy of the birth certificate for your passport application, assuming you know where to apply. Republican proposals all are designed for those with disposable income, not for the rural or urban poor who already have to juggle food, housing and medical care.
I'm sure a naturalization certiificate would suffice, also. But, lo and behold, if you can't find yours, it will cost you around $600 to get a replacement. You'd also better apply now for the November 2026 election, because even before all the government employee terminations it took a friend of mine at least 5 months to get her replacement.
So the majority of women won't be able to vote unless they buy a passport, right?
I raise my middle finger while depositing my mail-in ballot. Love Oregon.
The Save Act, if the Senate passes it, is the equivalent of a poll tax. The documentation needed to recover or receive the right to vote costs money and takes time. This act would further discriminate against people who, for what ever reason, aren't able to come up with documentation that satisfies the order.
Can't imagine people are going to just roll over for this one.
This is exactly where we need court protections for the people. The question is, will we get it?
the answer is at some point no
I thought that it was likely a pointless question.
Totally agree with Norm!
Thank you for this piece Norm Ornstein. The only fraud here is the SAVE Act itself and the contortions that the GOP MAGA crowd are executing to try to justify it.
I've always said that voter ID is fine as long as the government does whatever is necessary to get the required ID for any citizen who needs it--at no cost to the citizen. And the person retains the right to vote while the ID is in process.
Thank you for pointing out that the SAVE act is effectively a poll tax.
I think only US citizens should vote. How do we prove citizenship? Perhaps that is the question needing an answer.
It is already the case (and always has been) that only U.S. citizens vote. Study after study confirms that this is indeed the case. Voter fraud is essentially non-existent, as has been laid outover and over again, and even in this post.
How do voters prove they are citizens?
That depends on the state, usually a birth certificate, but you seem to be intentionally missing the point. Stop pretending that non-citizens voting has EVER been an issue. The sole purpose of the SAVE Act is voter suppression and disenfranchisement, as is PROVEN by the fact that it won't accept a Real ID, which requires a birth certificate and other proof of identity to get. Real ID was supposed to be the be-all and end-all of IDs, required for entry into federal buildings and flights, but now it's not good enough? And over half of American adults do not have a passport.