reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that Democrats have been inconsistent on voter ID, particularly photo ID. He notes that for years Democrats claimed voter ID was a tool of voter suppression, then began hedging. He contends that Democrats now publicly say they support voter ID, with some leaders claiming their objection is not to a photo ID, but to other inclusivity formats like leases, utility bills, debit cards, or photocopies. He asserts that, in contrast, the Democrat floor leader said he objected to photo ID and called for inclusive voter ID options, but that Democrats have also supported photo ID in many other contexts (air travel, school enrollment, opening bank accounts). He argues this inconsistency shows Democrats “backpedaling” when pressed to support ID at the polls. The speaker cites severalDemocrats who have, at times, supported or stated favorable views toward voter ID, yet later qualified or avoided the position. He mentions a senior Democrat from New Jersey who said he would support a voter ID bill until pressed, then began avoiding the commitment. He references a junior Georgia Democrat who claimed, “I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID,” while also noting concerns about the specific requirements under discussion. He also quotes additional Democrats to illustrate what he sees as mixed messages: a Democrat from Arizona suggesting support for a strict voter ID approach; a Democrat from Rhode Island describing their state’s “sensible voter ID law” and frequent roll reviews as effective; the Democrat Senate leader stating that “Democrats support voter ID” ten days earlier; and a Georgia Democrat reiterating the expectation to prove one’s identity before voting and describing it as “basic.” The speaker announces an amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill, intended to require a photo ID at the polls, such as a driver’s license, tribal ID, military ID, veteran ID, or a passport. He clarifies that this amendment would not affect the Save America Act and would not obligate Democrats to vote for the final bill; they could vote for the amendment and against the overall act. The amendment’s purpose, he says, is to force Democrats to demonstrate whether they truly support photo ID in a concrete, real-world form. The speaker invites Democrats to demonstrate their actual stance by supporting the clean photo ID amendment and asserts that this would reveal where they truly stand.

Secretary Bellows discusses the biggest threats to our democracy, highlighting election sabotage and voter suppression. She emphasizes the need for better leaders to combat these issues and stresses the importance of federal standards across the country. Secretary Bellows also mentions the deliberate campaign to discourage people from participating in our democracy, which she sees as an attack on our values. She urges everyone to fight back and protect our democracy and everything it stands for. The other speaker agrees with her points.

The speaker states they are in litigation with 18 states across 19 different lawsuits over these states’ alleged refusal to comply. They say objections raised include privacy, noting they are requesting information such as the last four digits of individuals’ Social Security numbers and whether someone is in the country legally or a citizen, which they describe as a matter of federal records. The speaker asserts that the concept of this being a privacy issue is “total nonsense,” and argues that those states have no right to be on the voter rolls. They express an expectation to win these cases, even if it takes going to the Supreme Court. The speaker indicates they started this effort earlier in the year to give states a chance and mentions targeting jurisdictions like Fulton County, Georgia, which still has custody of some ballots from the 2020 election that they would like to examine, along with a couple of other jurisdictions. They say they reached a settlement with North Carolina, which is cleaning up its voter rolls with 100,000 records that were incorrect and needed updating. They mention they waited on behalf of Wyoming’s voter ID law and helped them win a case in court against liberal efforts to push it back. The speaker outlines an overall expectation for 2026: cleaner voter rolls, with many election officials, as noted by John, doing their job after receiving these letters. They anticipate hundreds of thousands of people in some states being removed from the voter rolls correctly. The speaker notes a past hesitation to act, suggesting it was because the DOJ and some left-wing organizations would sue when states attempted to do their job, framing it as “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” They conclude that for the remainder of this administration, they will be supporting states in cleaning their voter rolls as required by federal law and emphasize that they are just getting started.

According to the speaker, Gavin Newsom signed a document that makes it a crime to ask a voter for identification. The speaker believes this action indicates a desire to cheat on elections. The speaker claims that while identification is required for other activities, it is now virtually a crime to ask for it when voting, which the speaker considers the most important act. The speaker asserts the only reason for this is to enable election cheating and insists this should not be allowed to happen.

A Georgia judge ruled that election officials must certify results even amid suspected voter fraud. Meanwhile, Democrats are suing to block drop box surveillance, hand counting, and voter ID protections, raising concerns about election security. In Virginia, Governor Youngkin removed over 6,000 noncitizens from voter rolls, prompting a lawsuit from the Biden administration. This action, based on a law from 2006 signed by then-Democrat Governor Tim Kaine, is viewed as common sense and constitutional. The timing of the lawsuit, just 25 days before the presidential election, is seen as troubling, as efforts to ensure free and fair elections are being challenged.

This executive order is described as the farthest reaching executive action to secure elections in the history of the republic. It aims to cut down on illegal immigrants on voter rolls by weaponizing Department of Homeland Security data and including a citizenship question on the federal voting form. The order instructs the EAC to cut federal funding to states that don't take reasonable steps to secure their elections and calls on the Department of Justice to prosecute election crimes, especially in states not in compliance with federal election law. It also aims to ensure compliance with national election day rules, investigate and prosecute foreign interference, and revoke President Biden's executive order 14019, which is claimed to have weaponized government to corrupt the election process.

The claim is that 69 million married women won't be able to vote if they took their husband's name, disenfranchising voters. Voters want ID, signature verification, chain of custody controls, and updated voter rolls. They also want partisan observers watching the voting process. The only reason to be against these measures is if you want illegal aliens to vote in large numbers. Every other country requires an ID to vote. The idea that married women, a Republican voting demographic, can't get ID is a dumb talking point. The REAL ID Act creates an ID at the DMV that proves citizenship. Democrats want illegal aliens to vote. The Biden administration gave millions of illegal aliens Social Security numbers, making it easy to vote, collect welfare, and get free government benefits. They want illegals to steal elections.

In this video, secretaries of states from Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, and Maine are seen discussing the biggest threats to democracy. They mention election sabotage, voter suppression targeting black and brown voters, the need for federal standards, and an organized campaign to discourage people from participating in democracy. They emphasize the importance of fighting back to protect our democracy and everything it stands for.

I prioritize the preservation of American democracy and believe in free and fair elections. There is a dangerous extremist movement in America that threatens our democracy. We must all take action to protect it, as history, the world, and future generations are watching. The vice president and I have been advocating for voting rights since the beginning of our administration, and I urge all Americans to join us in this cause. We are a nation of possibilities, where the power lies with the people. Together, there is nothing we cannot achieve. Paid for by the...

In California and New York, showing ID when voting is not allowed, even if you want to. The question is, why would that ever be a good idea? Well, if you're trying to facilitate fraud in elections, it's a great idea. There's logically no other reason why that would be a good idea. It's for fraud. Wake up, people. If you wanted to commit fraud, the first things you would do is say that you don't need an ID and that you can mail in your ballot.

The justice department is fighting back against attacks on the right to vote by doubling the voting section of the civil rights division. They are challenging discriminatory voting restrictions like mail-in voting, drop boxes, and voter ID requirements. Efforts are also being made to block unfair redistricting plans that diminish the voting power of black and other minority voters.

The justice department is fighting to protect the right to vote by expanding the voting section of the civil rights division. They are challenging discriminatory voting restrictions like mail-in voting, drop boxes, and voter ID requirements. Additionally, they are working to stop unfair redistricting plans that weaken the votes of black and other voters of color.

A Georgia judge ruled that election officials must certify results even amid suspected voter fraud. Democrats are suing to block measures like drop box surveillance, hand counting ballots, and voter ID protections, raising concerns about election security. In Virginia, Governor Youngkin removed over 6,000 noncitizens from voter rolls, a move criticized by the Biden administration, which is now suing Virginia for this action. The law allowing the removal of noncitizens has been in place since 2006, originally signed by then-Governor Tim Kaine. The push for secure elections is framed as a common-sense constitutional measure, contrasting with perceived efforts by Democrats to weaken election integrity.

Voter ID laws are a vestige of post-slavery laws where Black people had to prove their right to vote, often failing due to tests or lack of appropriate ID. These laws also affect married women whose passports may differ from their birth certificates or driver's licenses. Less voter ID laws allows more people to vote, which is how most democracies operate, unlike the United States.

I'm frustrated with Merrick Garland using the Department of Justice for political purposes instead of impartially enforcing the law. It's time to stop complaining and take action. I'm announcing that I will hold all Department of Justice nominees accountable, because Garland will use them to harass political opponents. We need to halt this department until Garland promises to do his job and stop targeting political adversaries. Donald Trump is just one example. We've seen Catholic fathers harassed for pro-life activism, while violent criminals walk free after the 2020 riots. Harassing Christian parents while letting criminals go is pure politics, not justice. Let's slow down this department until Garland changes course and does his job correctly.

We need to stop mail-in applications and ballots because we don't have the means to control them in the United States. Additionally, drop boxes are causing problems and should be eliminated. Some states will still have drop boxes funded by Zuckerberg for the midterms, while others won't. Georgia, for example, will keep drop boxes but move them inside buildings.

Mail-in ballots pose significant issues. Voter ID requirements are also contentious, with arguments against them often lacking clarity. It's perplexing why some oppose having ID, especially since it's required for many everyday activities, like obtaining a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID, raising questions about the rationale behind such a decision. In contrast, organizations like the Democratic National Convention require extensive identification for their events. If ID is necessary for various transactions, why not for voting, which is crucial? Many citizens, including Democrats, support voter ID, but some politicians resist it, possibly to maintain opportunities for fraud. Ultimately, the lack of voter ID raises concerns about the integrity of elections.

This executive order is described as the farthest-reaching executive action to secure elections in the history of the republic. It aims to cut down on illegal immigrants on voter rolls by weaponizing Department of Homeland Security data and including a citizenship question on the federal voting form. The order instructs the EAC to cut federal funding to states that don't take reasonable steps to secure their elections. It also calls on the Department of Justice to vigorously prosecute election crimes, especially in states not believed to be in compliance with federal election law. Additional measures include compliance with national election day rules, cracking down on foreign interference, and revoking President Biden's executive order 14019, which is claimed to have weaponized the government to corrupt the election process.

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states are not requiring proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia issued an executive order to clean up voting rules. The Biden administration's Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to try to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern because everyone should want the law to be followed.

The speaker claims the Biden-Harris administration and some states are undermining election integrity, not them. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting, but states have issues. The speaker says the House passed the SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, but Chuck Schumer and the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. The speaker alleges the open border policy is a Democratic strategy to enable non-citizen voting. They estimate 16 million illegal aliens are in the country since the border was opened, raising concerns about their potential illegal participation in elections, where some races are decided by very few votes. The speaker also cites California's ballot harvesting and unmanned ballot boxes in Wisconsin as potential sources of fraud.

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states do not require proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order to clean up the state's voting rules. The Biden-Harris administration Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern in the minds of many Americans.

A bill signed in 2006 requires using DMV data to remove non-citizens from voter rolls if they are registered. This process has been ongoing for 18 years, even under Democrat governors. When someone identifies as a non-citizen at the DMV and is registered to vote, registrars are notified and the individual is given 14 days to affirm citizenship or be removed from the voter roll. The Department of Justice ordered the process to stop 25 days before a presidential election. The governor believes this is unprecedented and indicates the DOJ is trying to achieve something other than fair elections. The governor's job is to ensure fair, accurate, and safe elections in Virginia, and he will continue to do so because he believes the Department of Justice is wrong.

The speaker states that there is no dispute: the conduct of our elections, the way government comes into power, is a national security issue, and the security of our elections is incredibly important. The speaker says they are comforted as a citizen and as someone at the Department of Justice by the fact that national security eyes are on this, as well as criminal and civil rights review. They add that, at the end of the day, as a voter themselves and someone involved in politics before taking the job, they like every citizen to vote. They note that a lot of people don’t vote, don’t have confidence, and don’t care. It is important that people have confidence in, accept the outcome of the elections, and also be more likely to vote. The speaker concludes that this is a very good thing, whoever they’re voting for.

In California and New York, it is illegal to ask for or show ID when people vote. According to the speakers, there is no logical reason for this law other than to facilitate election fraud. To commit fraud, one would eliminate the need for ID and allow mail-in ballots.

The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ provided an update on its election integrity litigation. The department announced that it sued four additional jurisdictions for not complying with federal election laws and facilitating the sharing of voter data: Georgia, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In addition, three more jurisdictions provided voluntary compliance, bringing the total to ten states that are voluntarily sharing their voter data so that the DOJ can help ensure that only American citizens vote, and that each person votes only once in federal elections per election cycle. The DOJ stated that, despite the holiday season, it will continue its work to obtain compliance from every jurisdiction or pursue lawsuits where necessary. The announcement framed the effort as part of making federal elections great again and ensuring that every citizen has confidence in them.