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.

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 packed room at the Saint Paul armory erupted after the governor's signature made driver's licenses for all the law of the land.

A person attempted to show their ID while voting in Palo Alto, California, but election officials refused to look at it. According to the speaker, they were "not allowed" to look at the ID even when offered. The speaker characterizes this as "madness" and claims that if Democrats win nationally, they will implement similar policies nationwide, resulting in the end of democracy.

A group of about 12 foreigners arrived to vote. Younger individuals assisted them in filling out their voter information. They managed to bypass a two-hour line and approached a polling official. However, there was an issue with one woman's name not being in the system. The group suggested they could change it on the spot, raising questions about how that could be done.

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.

A person attempted to vote early, but the scanner was broken. Staff said they would scan the ballot later, after everyone left, and offered to put it in a box. The person declined and said they would return another day.

My friend tried to help her nephew get a driver's license in Pompano Beach, Florida, but they were turned away twice and told to return at 6 am. When they arrived early, they found a large group of Somali illegal immigrants, mostly military-age men, waiting. They were not allowed to film the scene. The speaker criticized the situation and mentioned the ease of obtaining a driver's license for voting purposes. They also blamed Kamala Harris for allowing these people into the country.

A group of about 12 foreigners arrived to vote. Younger individuals assisted them in filling out their voter registration forms. They managed to bypass a two-hour line and approached a polling station. However, one woman was told her name wasn't in the system. The group suggested they could go back and change it, raising questions about how names could be altered.

The video documents an undercover-style investigation at the New York City Board of Elections on the 10th Floor at 200 Varick Street, focusing on whether noncitizens can register to vote. Speaker 0 plans to pose as a noncitizen Canadian green-card holder and attempts to engage a staffer about voter registration. In the first encounter, Speaker 2 tells Speaker 1 that “Everything you fill out, you’re swearing an affidavit that everything you’re putting down is true,” and notes that “you gotta be a citizen to fill it out.” Speaker 1 identifies as “a green card holder from Canada.” The staffer initially signals uncertainty about whether to fill out the form, saying, “I wouldn’t fill it out,” but also suggests the possibility that noncitizens have previously registered. Speaker 0 observes that the staffer does not state it would be illegal to complete the application as a noncitizen, only that the staffer “doesn’t recommend it.” The conversation reveals that the staffer acknowledges noncitizens have registered before: “We have people who come in here and they have legal situations and they registered, they weren’t a citizen, boom boom boom.” The staffer also admits that they “can’t stop you from submitting the application,” and that there is generally no full background check; “we can’t do our background check on you. We just collect it. That’s it.” Speaker 2 reinforces that the staff’s role is to collect and submit, not to verify citizenship, stating, “we accept anything that comes over the counter,” and reiterating that “if it comes back to you, it comes back to… If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.” When Speaker 1 asks if they will report the noncitizen, the staffer responds, “No. No. No. I’m not… that’s not my job to report anyone. My job is just to collect the application and put it and submit it to the department.” Speaker 0 cites New York election law—“Under New York election law, section seventeen one zero six, any election officer who willfully violates any provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors is guilty of a felony”—to argue that processing a noncitizen registration would be a criminal offense. After leaving the office, the pair return to request more information, but the staffer becomes suspicious, consults a coworker, and then refuses to accept their application. The video notes that, according to the staff, “we get registrations come to the mail. We, you know, we whatever comes through, we accept and then it’s submitted,” and emphasizes the absence of ID or proof of citizenship requirements at registration, solely requiring an affidavit asserting citizenship. The segment concludes by highlighting concerns about potential threats to electoral integrity, asserting that there is no requirement to show ID or documentation to register, and that all that is required is signing an affidavit claiming American citizenship.

I'm going to do some sparring and check online. A question arises about bringing someone to vote at 4 o'clock. Voting is reportedly closed, but there's confusion because people believe they have the right to vote until 4:30. One person explains that the process is slow due to high volume, leading to a cutoff at 1:45. This prompts accusations of voter fraud, claiming that cutting the line is unjust. Despite the explanation that the cutoff is posted, the frustration continues, with claims that everyone in line should be allowed to vote until 4:30 on election day. Tensions rise as accusations of election fraud are exchanged, and the situation remains heated.

The process is slow and grueling, leading to the decision to close the line at 1:45 PM due to high demand. Many people were still waiting, but they had to stop accepting new voters at that time. This has sparked claims of voter fraud, although others dispute that notion. There are suggestions to contact voter protection services and county commissioners to voice complaints about the situation. The discussion revolves around the frustrations of voters and the implications of the line closure.

Governor Tim Wall signed the driver's license for all bill into law, allowing all Minnesotans to obtain a driver's license regardless of immigration status. One speaker stated that instead of changing the politician, the goal is to change the voter. Allowing undocumented immigrants to have an ID is considered un-American, and the speaker believes the intention is to flood the market with illegal voters, given concerns about free and fair elections. The speaker claims this policy will allow millions of people to have an ID. The speaker believes that taxpaying and everyday Americans find this policy disgusting and outrageous, and that policymakers are not listening to the concerns of the public.

Speaker 0 explains that under that scenario, someone could get their driver's license again because they register to vote. If the Social Security number doesn’t match, they’re flagged, but as long as they have an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they’re eligible to vote, they can vote, and they’re no longer flagged. They would be on the system, correct, Mister Lanell. Speaker 1 responds: Madam chair, if I could add, and maybe stepping back from those that are flagged as CID on the roster, for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that is an affirmation of their identity. The driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote—affirming that they are who they say they are. So in any of these cases where someone were to cast a ballot if they were ineligible to vote, there are also reports that are generated post election for voters that are challenged. Counties will run to show status of voters that had been updated due to the fact that they’ve now cast a ballot, and that can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. Speaker 0 concludes: Okay. So the answer is yes to my question.

A group of about 12 foreigners arrived to vote. They were assisted by younger individuals to fill out their voter registration forms. Despite facing a two-hour wait, they managed to bypass the line. When one woman approached the voting station, officials couldn't find her name in the system. The group suggested they could change her name to resolve the issue, raising questions about how that could be done.

The speaker describes a situation in which registration and voting can occur even when a person does not live in the country, citing an example involving a brother in Pakistan to illustrate the point. According to the speaker, there is evidence of two or three other people who are outside the country voting, as well as people residing outside of the district. This is presented as a factual observation about who has voted, including individuals located abroad and not within the local district boundaries. The speaker then critiques the online voter registration system by characterizing it as an honor system. The claim is that anybody can enter information into the online system to register and vote, relying on the promise of truthfulness. The process alleged by the speaker is described as follows: a person would place information into the system and then simply click a box stating that they are not lying about the information provided. After doing so, the person would receive an email from the secretary of state or a similar official channel in the mail, indicating acknowledgment or thanks for registering to vote, effectively confirming their registration. Following this registration, the speaker notes a procedural consequence: once an individual is on the voter rolls, they are mailed a ballot for each election. In other words, the pattern described is that being on the voter rolls automatically leads to receiving a mailed ballot for every election that occurs, according to the speaker’s account of how the system operates. The speaker emphasizes a continuity of this process across elections, implying that the mailed ballot would be a recurring consequence of enrollment on the voter rolls. Throughout the account, there is an emphasis on what the speaker views as the potential vulnerability or problematic nature of the system. The speaker asserts that the combination of an online registration process that relies on an honor system, the possibility of registering with false or unverified information, and the automatic mailing of ballots to those on the rolls creates a situation that the speaker finds problematic. The overall narrative connects the initial observations about individuals voting from abroad and outside the district to a broader critique of the online registration and ballot distribution processes, underscoring concerns about eligibility verification and the integrity of the voting system as described by the speaker.

A person is told they must sign in to attend a town meeting, either as a registered voter or as a visitor. The person questions the requirement to sign in for a public meeting, and the staff member insists that it is the law. The person refuses to sign in and claims it is a public meeting open to the public. The staff member says that those who don't sign in must sit up front so they do not vote. The person threatens a lawsuit. The town moderator introduces himself. The person asks if he is an attorney and questions where he got his law degree. The person references a previous interaction where they were told signing in was the law. The staff member admits they were wrong. The person asks if they will continue to force people to sign in, and the staff member says they are told to do it.

Speaker 0 states they can help the individual register when they get their ID. Speaker 1 asserts that an ID does not prove citizenship. Speaker 0 says they moved the individual from citizens in 2013 and that they had IDs in multiple states. The individual acknowledges this.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware. The speaker then asks if the person instructed their absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person responds that they went over the manual but did not specifically mention the signature requirement. The speaker shows an example of an envelope without a signature and asks if it should have been counted. The person objects, but the speaker clarifies that they were in charge of counting the ballots. The person admits they did not discuss the signature requirement with the moderator. The speaker asks if the person's office ever checked for the clerk's signature on the envelopes, to which the person says it never came up in their training.

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.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware of this. The speaker then questions if the person instructed the absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person says they did not. The speaker shows examples of envelopes with and without the clerk's signature, and asks if the one without should have been counted. The person agrees that it should not have been counted. The speaker asks if the person ever checked for the clerk's signature on envelopes, and the person says it never came up in their training.

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 governor signed the driver's license for all bill into law, causing a packed room at the Saint Paul armory to erupt in cheers.

The first speaker describes a scenario in which a person can obtain a driver’s license again because licenses are issued broadly to those who register to vote. If the individual’s Social Security number does not match, they are flagged, but as long as they present an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they are eligible to vote, they can vote and are no longer flagged, remaining in the system. Mister Lanell then responds by clarifying the process. He says that for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that documentation serves as affirmation of their identity. He notes that the driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote; rather, it affirms that the person is who they say they are. He adds that in any case where someone were to cast a ballot, if they were ineligible to vote, there are reports generated post-election for voters who are challenged. Counties run these reports to show the status of voters that had been updated due to having cast a ballot, and these reports can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. The first speaker concludes by restating the original question and provides a direct answer: the answer is yes to their question.

You need to fill out paperwork to vote, even without ID or a driver's license. Just provide your name, date, and signature. No registration is required to vote.