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.

The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, passed the House with every Republican and four Democrats voting for it, while 98% of Democrats voted against it, despite 84% of Americans supporting voter ID. One argument against voter ID is that it suppresses voting among elderly, poor, and minority groups, echoing post-slavery laws. Obtaining a valid ID can cost $10-$30, and updating documents or traveling to ID offices can be inconvenient. Recently, it was revealed that Social Security numbers were given to millions of illegal immigrants, and thousands of them were found on voter rolls and had voted. While voter ID has cons, the pros outweigh them. Subsidizing IDs for low-income people and acknowledging that voting is a shared inconvenience for all citizens could be solutions. The opposition to voter ID may stem from partisan politics, but politicians should prioritize the will of the people over party loyalty.

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.

Only citizens should vote in federal elections according to most speakers. Some believe proof of citizenship should be required for voter registration, while others find it redundant and discriminatory. Voter ID laws are supported by some for ensuring election integrity without disenfranchising legal voters, citing increased turnout in states with such laws.

It's unbelievable how easy it is to vote without proper identification. When I tried to vote, my signature didn't match, yet they didn't ask for my ID. Instead, they just had me sign a piece of paper claiming my identity. This highlights a corrupt system. New York really needs voter ID laws because it's possible for someone, even someone deceased like my father, to vote without any identification. This situation is disgraceful and disrespects the sacrifices made by soldiers for our constitution.

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.

The clip argues that ICE and the National Guard would “chill participation” at polling places and that there must be “a stake in the ground and do things differently.” The speaker, who says, “throughout that entire eighteen year period, there was never a single time that I showed up at a polling station on election day because I did not have the right to vote in America,” asks: “So what is Gavin Newsom saying here? There are immigrants who are voting?” They claim “the presence of ICE will stop people from going to the polls” and conclude that, “So basically what he is saying is that illegal immigrants will be deterred from going to the polls.” They ask, “Is this the reason why they don't want voter IDs?” “If this is not a confession of how corrupt the voting system in Democrat controlled states have become, I don't know what will convince you.” “As a new American citizen... I believe that my vote needs to be protected from being wiped out by illegal immigrants.” “If this was not a plan, I am calling on ICE to actually show up at polling stations because citizens are not intimidated by seeing law enforcement.” “And we cannot continue to allow our election system to be abused.”

Speaker 0 discusses the likelihood of achieving 60 votes and questions whether the situation is merely a show. He acknowledges uncertainty, noting, “We don't know that we don't have 60 votes yet,” and counters the assumption that there aren’t even 51 votes by saying, “Multiple members of your conference say that there aren't even 51 votes.” He cautions against assuming Democrats won’t be won over, stating, “you're making an assumption that at the end of this debate that none of the Democrats will be won over,” but he also concedes the possibility that none will be won over. Despite the uncertainty, he argues that the debate on the floor of the Senate is important and that the issue is at the core of elections in the United States. He asserts that the American people care about this issue and that constituents have raised it frequently, making it a significant topic to discuss publicly. He believes it is important to have the fight and the debate, regardless of how it ends. A central point he emphasizes is the defense of the position requiring citizenship to participate in voting processes. He states, “at the end of the day, I just don't know how you defend a position that you need to be a citizen in this country, not only to register a vote, but also to be able to show an ID when you vote.” He wonders how long Democrats will defend that position and reiterates the possibility that none of them will be won over. Nevertheless, he reiterates the value of the Senate floor debate, indicating that the process itself is important.

The speaker criticizes the idea that black and brown people cannot obtain IDs to vote, calling it racist and a form of low expectations. They emphasize that voting in the country is easy and that they, along with their family members who served in the military, have never faced difficulties in obtaining IDs. The speaker urges others to focus on voter integrity and not let the issue be framed as a racial one. They promise to fight for the people's right to have their votes counted in Congress.

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.

Some people believe voter ID laws are racist and suppress the African American vote because minorities are less likely to have required IDs, lack access to DMVs, and face internet access barriers. They also cite felony disenfranchisement in swing states like Florida. In East Harlem, when asked about these claims, black people stated they carry ID and know others who do as well. They found it strange to suggest otherwise. They also knew the location of the DMV and how to get there. They stated they have internet access and know how to use it, calling the opposing claims "stupid" and "ignorant," with some suggesting racism. They had no problem with showing ID to vote.

Some people may struggle with voter ID laws because not everyone has easy access to copy their ID. It's important to consider the impact on rural communities without nearby copy services. While proving identity is necessary, it should not be overly burdensome.

They had a voter ID the size of citizens, like a picture with all their information. It was required to enter the convention, but we don't want voter ID for voting.

This proposal is a serious matter. People who register and vote illegally disenfranchise actual US citizens. The speaker objects to the suggestion that their motive is to disingenuously sow fear and uncertainty about election legitimacy, calling the accusation inaccurate and lacking proof. The speaker believes there is ample reason to bring the proposal forward and expresses deep disappointment that it cannot pass. It is not too much to ask to put teeth into existing laws stating that only US citizens can vote in US elections. The House passed it, and the Senate could pass it now. It is inexcusable not to.

I felt compelled to share my experience after working at a polling station for the November 5th election in Iowa. During training, I learned that illegal immigrants can vote using driver's licenses that look identical to those of US citizens. If their citizenship is questioned, they can still vote using a provisional ballot, which is later verified. They have until November 12th to provide proof of citizenship, but documents like utility bills do not confirm citizenship. I'm concerned about the integrity of the voting process and who verifies these provisional ballots. It's crucial for US citizens to be informed and vote responsibly. I encourage everyone to educate themselves and engage in the electoral process. This is about raising awareness of what’s happening. Please keep negative comments to a minimum; I'm sharing this to inform, not to offend.

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.

The speaker believes that demanding vaccine IDs while opposing voter ID laws is hypocritical. They claim the purpose of not requiring voter ID is to enable large-scale election fraud that cannot be proven, because it's impossible to prove without ID. The speaker dismisses the argument that voter ID laws are racist, calling it "insane" and "patronizing" to suggest people can't obtain identification. They argue that it's nearly impossible to live in the country without an ID, as it's required for almost everything except voting.

We are committed to ensuring that only U.S. citizens participate in elections, and so far, there is no evidence of noncitizen voting. However, there have been instances where noncitizens voted; this year, 135 were identified as having voted, with another 400 registered but not yet voting. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean we shouldn't have measures in place to prevent it, similar to how we maintain TSA for air travel security.

I, of course, want to remove every non eligible voter from our voter rolls. That is not in dispute. I, of course, want to remove every non eligible voter from the voter rolls, especially those who don't support my core values. That is not in dispute.

I objected to obtaining flight records as it invades privacy. I am not the one on trial; those trying to steal the 2020 election are. My question remains. Translation: I opposed accessing flight records as it invades privacy. I am not the one being tried; those attempting to steal the 2020 election are. My question still stands.

I went to vote, but they wouldn't let me. They claimed they didn't understand me because I was speaking English. Then they asked for ID, which I found outrageous. I couldn't believe they would ask for identification. They even said they were going to call the police on me.

A crowd gathered at the Saint Paul Armory after the governor signed a measure making driver's licenses available broadly, described as “driver’s licenses for all,” effectively serving as a photo ID for all residents, regardless of citizenship. The discussion then centers on how these licenses interact with voting and registration processes. One speaker notes that if someone comes in with a driver’s license, they would receive a photo ID and register accordingly, even if their social security number is incorrect or missing. The concern raised is whether that person, after obtaining a driver’s license, could then cast a vote despite incomplete registration information. The dialogue explores the potential for a non-citizen who possesses a driver’s license to participate in elections. In response, another participant—referred to as the chair—addresses the procedure for handling incomplete registrations. The chair explains that the designation on the roster for someone whose registration is incomplete can be resolved if the person presents an acceptable identification document. In such a case, the challenge from the roster would be cleared, and the individual would be permitted to cast a ballot. A subsequent aside acknowledges the potential problem inherent in this approach, with a speaker named Anderson prompting clarification. The core question remains: could a person who is not a citizen, but who presents a driver’s license at the voting point, be permitted to vote? The chair provides a definitive statement regarding eligibility: at both the time of registration and at the time of submitting a ballot, every voter signs an attestation affirming their eligibility to vote, including that they meet all eligibility requirements that they are a US citizen. This underscores the requirement that, despite the availability of driver’s licenses to a broad population, the attestation of citizenship remains a binding condition for voting. The exchange highlights a tension between broad ID access and the constitutional requirement of citizenship for voting, with the chair reiterating that citizenship is required to vote, even if driver’s licenses are issued more inclusively.

Speaker 0: President Trump is urging Congress to pass the Save America Act, describing it as one of the most critical pieces of legislation in our nation's history. He asserts the Save America Act is overwhelmingly popular with all Americans because each provision is rooted in common sense, and outlines five simple requirements as requested by the president of the United States. 1) Voters have to show ID to cast a ballot in an American election. He states this is very simple and notes that 90% of Americans, including more than 80% of Democrat voters, agree with this. 2) The Save America Act will require all voters to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. He asserts this is popular and rooted in common sense, insisting that only American citizens have the right to vote in American elections. He claims that after Joe Biden and the Democrats allowed tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country, it is more important than ever to ensure that only American citizens are registering to vote on our nation's voter rolls, and he calls on Congress to pass this. 3) The Save America Act abolishes the incongruously unsecure practice of universal mail-in ballots, which he says "throw the door wide open for fraud." He notes that the act maintains exceptions for Americans to use mail-in ballots for illness, disability, military, or travel reasons. He references the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker, which concluded that absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud and that Congress should address this. 4) The Save America Act permanently bans men from competing in women's sports. He notes that President Trump signed a landmark executive order upholding the promise of Title IX and ending this practice, and argues that now it’s time for Congress to codify this into law. 5) The Save America Act bans transgender mutilation surgery for children. He states that the president signed a common-sense executive order to do this and kept his promise to the American people, but now Congress needs to codify it. He asserts it is well past time for Democrats in Congress to stop perpetuating the radical and false claim that you can somehow change a child's sex, stating that you cannot. He concludes by saying passing the Save America Act is the most important thing Republicans—and frankly Democrats—can do to strengthen election integrity and protect democracy. He asserts it is what the American people elected Republicans to do and that they must deliver on it as soon as possible. The president calls on Congress to get the job done and send this historic piece of legislation to his desk immediately for signature.

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 speaker expresses shock at the idea of allowing people to vote without an ID. They mention that some people believe all Indians and Chinese look alike, making it difficult to identify individuals. They argue that anyone could show up and vote, even pretending to be someone else. The speaker believes that having an ID should be a basic requirement for voting and suggests that everyone should be required to provide identification.