Republicans Want Voters To Provide Proof Of Citizenship To Vote. Millions Could Be Impacted.
Source: Huff Post
Mar 31, 2025, 05:45 AM EDT
When she was working as an election official in Arizona years ago, Tammy Patrick encountered voters who supported what was then the states new proof of citizenship law for voter registration only to realize that they had been disenfranchised by it. Theyd say, I voted for that! she recalled of the voters, many of whom were snowbirds, older people, who didnt have the wherewithal to get [the correct documents] because the documents didnt exist anymore. It was heart-wrenching, Patrick said.
At the time, Arizona was the only state in the nation with a documentary proof of citizenship requirement for voters, and thousands of people have since lost out on the right to vote in state elections. Kansas, which later also tried its own citizenship requirement for voter registration, saw similar results.
Kansas did that 10 years ago, Kansass Republican Secretary of State Scott Schwab told The Associated Press in December of his states own requirement, which prevented tens of thousands of voter registrations and was ultimately blocked in court in 2018. It didnt work out so well.
Nonetheless, despite data showing tens of millions of Americans dont have ready access to proof of citizenship documents, Republicans are now pushing hard to require those records nationwide for voter registration. They havent been able to make it happen yet. But two efforts, one each from the White House and congressional Republicans, have made the prospect of a national proof of citizenship requirement a real possibility.
Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/proof-of-citizenship-requirement-voter-registration-save-act_n_67e81a64e4b0f0380605eb7f

Initech
(104,400 posts)
Bengus81
(8,532 posts)was never ONCE told by a election worker that ummm....sorry, our records show you've already voted.
I have never had that experience either. I do remember one time a husband and wife voting in my state and then going to I think it was Arkansas and voting there as well in the same federal election. Oh and they were republicans.
AZJonnie
(613 posts)GOP knows they more of a PITA they make it for people to legally vote (and the more it costs them) the better their chances are of winning elections. That simple.
Karasu
(865 posts)to vote, the better they do. The more accessible it is, the better we do. It's the sole reason they went so hard against mail-in voting, and informs every single bit of voter suppression they've been pushing for the last decade.
COL Mustard
(7,315 posts)To reimpose the poll tax. Pure and simple.
surfered
(5,880 posts)To obtain a drivers license, you must produce a birth certificate or passport.
Texas doesnt want the riff raff (read Democrats) voting.
pnwmom
(109,801 posts)Igel
(36,665 posts)there's a process--not the easiest to navigate for some people, I bet--but at least there's a process.
https://www.dps.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/driverlicense/documents/delayedbcfaqs.pdf
Back to 1980 when Paul Weyrich told Christian conservatives:
The Reich-wings North Star is preventing LEGITIMATE voters from voting. The Republican fear over the election in Wisconsin is based ON THAT!
Karasu
(865 posts)The easier it is to vote, the more they tend to lose. They know this very well.
OldBaldy1701E
(7,545 posts)I have documentation that says one side of my family has been here since 1650.
They want to see it? They are the government, they have the documentation themselves. They can go get it.
They are the ones with doubts, not me. I know I am an American citizen.
pnwmom
(109,801 posts)In that case you'd need a marriage certificate, too, or a name change document from a court.
OldBaldy1701E
(7,545 posts)But, still...
pnwmom
(109,801 posts)They know there is virtually no problem with undocumented people voting.
They also know that most married/divorced/widowed women no longer use the name on their birth certificate, and many of them do not have a passport or a REAL ID. And the process of getting them (if you have changed your name) is time-consuming and costly.
I just got mine, after starting the process a year ago and giving up because of a complication. It was a pain in the neck.
FakeNoose
(37,058 posts)... and make sure all IDs are in the maiden name. There's no problem for a woman showing a birth certificate when the passport and Real IDs are in her maiden name.
I actually did this 40 years ago when I was divorced. Resumed my maiden name 35 years ago, and my old "married" name doesn't exist anymore.
pnwmom
(109,801 posts)FakeNoose
(37,058 posts)
Skittles
(163,072 posts)nothing says inequality like giving up your identity
FakeNoose
(37,058 posts)If I ever get married again (not likely) I'll surely keep my same old name.
I've got 6 sisters, and 4 of them kept their maiden names.
ShazzieB
(20,046 posts)Some people change their names when getting married, and some don't, for a variety of reasons. Some probably always will, unless it's outlawed, which imo would be would be a gross infringement on people's personal choices. By the same token, I think people should be free to decide what name to use after a divorce. These are very personal decisions.
In my case, I chose to adopt the same surname as my husband, because I liked the idea of sharing a name with the person I had chosen to spend my life with. I loved my parents, but my identity was mine, not theirs, and it wasn't tied up with their last name. I was a fully autonomous, independent, self-sufficient person before I got married and have continued to be one for almost 51 years since then.
Did Michelle Robinson give up her identity when she married Barack Obama? Did Jill Tracy surrender part of her autonomy when she said "I do" to Joe Biden? How about Hillary Rodham, who initially kept her birth name but changed it later on, because people in Arkansas were being buttheads about their governor and his wife using different last names? Did she stop being an equal partner to Bill when she began using the name Clinton? In all three cases, my answer is a resounding "No."
A name is just a label. I think people should be allowed to label themselves how they want. That applies to men as well as women. I think Chasten Buttigieg and Brad Takei would agree.
Skittles
(163,072 posts)why didn't your husband take YOUR name - that's "sharing" too, right? Why do women OVERWHELMINGLY take the husband's name? Yeah, you don't need to respond, I already know.
ShazzieB
(20,046 posts)It was really that simple. For highly personal reasons I won't go into, I liked the idea of leaving my old name behind. It felt like a fresh start. Since I didn't have any desire to keep that name myself, asking him to take it never even entered my mind. There's no reason it would have.
I think it would have been cool for both of us to take a completely new name together, IF that was something we had both really wanted to do, but that wasn't the case. The choice boiled down to me taking his name or not taking it. He would have respected my wishes either way, but changing my name was what suited me at the time.
I'll admit that it was also simpler, because it was the expected thing. Any other choice would have involved answering a lot of questions and explaining ourselves over and over. I would have willingly done that if I'd wanted to keep my birth name, but I didn't. Avoiding that hassle is NOT why I changed my name, but it was a nice bonus.
SharonAnn
(14,003 posts)That was in 1979 when it was still unusual. And, interestingly, when I was working up my courage to tell my fiancé my decision, he told me that if I wanted to keep my name it was fine with him.
The only pushback I had was when my boss told me I needed to contact HR about changing my name but I explained I wasnt changing it. He was a little surprised but then said OK, then.
I had watched women go through all the hassle of name changes when marrying or divorcing and wanted to avoid all that. And Im so glad I did.
Skittles
(163,072 posts)it is irritating how women are expected to change their names, and how many still do it
liberalgunwilltravel
(753 posts)Then Republicans would never win another elections.
pnwmom
(109,801 posts)so they probably have lower numbers of passports, too.
"Women (32%) are more likely than men (22%) to have never traveled outside the country. "
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/12/most-americans-have-traveled-abroad-although-differences-among-demographic-groups-are-large/
The only time I traveled out of the country was to Canada, and that was when I was married.
After my divorce, I couldn't even afford vacations because the only jobs I could get didn't pay a living wage.
I have never had a passport. It wasn't needed for travel to Canada back in the 1980's.
Hekate
(96,988 posts)slightlv
(5,245 posts)I predicted this back when they first raised the REAL ID bill. Now, when they'd really like to see women and older voters disenfranchised, they're doing it.
I've tried and tried to get a REAL ID. It's not just birth certificates that are hard to get. Trace your marriages from marriage license to divorce however many times you did it. I know you young ones out there have listened and heeded retaining your own birth name, but for most of us older women it was even an afterthought... it we were even asked and it not added by the County Clerk automatically.
And then there are the wedding certificates that have white out on them (like mine). Even tho it's certified, it's no good as proof, so I have to come up with $16 to get 2 certified copies. It's taken me this long to calm down since I last tried at the first of this month. And now, THIS!
I've printed out the form, going to get a cashier's check for the $16 before we run out of money completely this month, and mail it certified mail to the County Clerks office... so they can't say they never received it again. Lord knows, at this time Texas is a long ways from KS for me.
The next step will be to only have elections like Hungary and Russia... and that's if they even allow those. All you white Christian males better get your ducks in order. Once they've stripped POC and women of all their rights, they'll be coming after you. No one lives a perfect life.
ShazzieB
(20,046 posts)I have a birth certificate that shows I was born in the U.S., but I had a different last name then. What's to stop anyone from refusing to believe it's me?
This applies to anyone who's ever changed their name on marrying, and it gets even more complicated when someone's been married more than once. And that's just one possible category of native born U.S. citizens who have used at least one name in adulthood that doesnt match our birth records.I wonder how the GOP is planning to address this.
I'd also like to know at what point the GOP wants voters to be required to prove citizenship. Not at the polls, I hope. That would create nightmare delays for everybody involved, voters and poll workers alike.
Attilatheblond
(5,563 posts)edited to add this link: https://www.usa.gov/request-documents]
BurnDoubt
(210 posts)An OFFICIAL ID certified by the Federal Government if this is to be made a requirement for ANYTHING. I personally believe each adult citizen should be required to vote in order to be a citizen in the USA. NO barriers to voting should EVER be allowed. This issue has been abused throughout our history, from poll-taxes to out-lawing providing water to voters forced to stand for long periods in line to vote. Election interference should be severely punished. Suffrage is our MOST Sacred Right and MUST NOT be infringed. Failing this, the Democratic Party needs to make sure their voters are prepared to vote by consulting every voter ahead of an election to verify their eligibility and provide the necessary curative where needed. This must be a first-line strategy, and fully-funded. Then, poll-watching should be done to verify ballots have been turned in. Find a way.
Attilatheblond
(5,563 posts)BurnDoubt
(210 posts)boonecreek
(821 posts)There's a "Question 1" one their ballot which would enshrine voter ID in
their constitution if it passes. The "vote yes on question 1" ads are relentless.
And of course they're pulling the safeguard our elections ploy.
DENVERPOPS
(11,591 posts)As one of Hitler's henchman proclaimed: It doesn't matter how people vote, it only matters who COUNTS the votes.....We have seen that fact in several elections in the past 25+ years, haven't we........Including who MAKES the voting machines.....EIS?
I guess Obama's ability to vote will be voided, This Asshole In The White House, and his CABAL ALL deny his birth certificate is real....
BumRushDaShow
(149,993 posts)Carnival Cruz wasn't born in the U.S., so his vote should be voided and his status should be revoked in order to deport him back to Canada (where he would be "stateless" having denounced his Canadian citizenship).
DENVERPOPS
(11,591 posts)My ancestors on my grandmother's side would have liked most of the people in the U.S. Deported because they were/are all basically illegal aliens, who truly were "criminals".........Too bad her/my ancestors didn't have a "Border Patrol" and "ICE"..........
Gotta be honest with you BRDS, not sure we're gonna make it through this pure insanity........
REALLY GOOD LIST by Thom Hartman on Trump/Putin's accelerating obliteration/destruction of America, in case you missed it.....
meow2u3
(25,117 posts)This is what proof of citizenship laws do: introduce the idea that you're guilty until proven innocent (of not being a citizen). It's only a matter of time before those tyrants pass laws that criminalize people only because of who they are, denying disfavored people due process. That's what the rethugs are really up to.
FakeNoose
(37,058 posts)When voters are challenged for identification in public polls, it's already Election Day and too late to do anything about it. People who came to vote can be cowed into accepting lame excuses from those who would challenge their right-to-vote.
I live in Pittsburgh where this would almost never happen (we're solid blue here) but I imagine it's quite a different story in some of the Southern states. In the red states, women and minorities are more likely to be treated as 2nd class citizens, and be denied their right to vote, or bullied into thinking so.
What's awesome about the mailed ballot voting is, when the mailed ballots are requested in advance, at the same time voters must present proof of registration. If you've already voted in the same precinct (same name and address) usually it's only a signature that needs to accompany the ballot request. This signature is kept on file for comparison to the actual mailed ballot later on. With mailed ballots, there's no in-person bullying going on, and voters cannot be traumatized into thinking they have no voting rights.
Another benefit (in my opinion) is that I can research the candidates and ballot questions before I vote my mailed ballot, whereas I was often winging it when I would go to polls and vote in person.
If you're already a registered voter in your current address (with no name change) you are better off voting by mail - EARLY - especially if you are...
1. Female
2. Non-white
3. Senior citizen
4. Handicapped
5. Speaking English as a 2nd language
6. Have work obligations that entail travel or working off-hours. This includes military service, school/university enrollees, etc.
Ignore Chump and the MAGAs, take advantage of your right to vote by mail.