-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
President Trump says that “Republicans” should “nationalize the election” or at least take over voting in up to 15 places where he says voting is corrupt. His evidence of fraudulent voting is that he lost in such places in 2020, and since it is axiomatic that he won everywhere, the reported results are proof of the fraud.
This is all delusional, narcissistic nonsense. But at this point, if you still claim it’s an open question whether Trump actually lost the 2020 election (he did), you’re immune to the facts or just lying — either about not having made up your mind or about what actually happened. So, I don’t see much point in relitigating an issue that was literally litigated in more than 60 courtrooms.
But Republicans’ inability simply to tell the truth about Trump’s lies makes talking about elections and election integrity infuriatingly difficult. One tactic is to assert that Trump didn’t say what he plainly said. “What I assume he meant by it is that we ought to pass — Congress ought to pass the SAVE Act, which I’m co-sponsor of,” is how Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) responded to questions about Trump’s remarks.
Before later correcting himself, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) insisted the president never said he wanted to “nationalize” the elections. “Those are your words, not his,” he told reporters.
But Democrats are wrong to suggest that all of the difficulty is generated by Trump’s lies and the Republicans’ inability to reject them.
On Sunday, ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), given “that the Republicans have undermined confidence in elections and the integrity of elections,” why not have a photo ID requirement for voting?
Schiff responded by scoffing at the idea that Democrats should cave to “the distrust [Republicans] created in order to enact a voter suppression law, which is the SAVE Act.”
Now there are reasonable objections to proof-of-citizenship requirements in the SAVE Act, but the framing of both the question and the answer is flawed.
Americans — including large majorities of Democrats — have favored voter ID for decades. Since long before anyone dreamed Donald Trump would run for president, never mind get elected, the idea has been wildly popular. In 2006, 80% of Americans favored showing proof of ID when voting. The lowest support over the last two decades, according to Pew, was in 2012 when a mere 77% of Americans, including 61% of Democrats favored voter ID. Last August, Pew found that 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats favored having to provide government-issued ID when voting.
Two things have bothered me about Democratic opposition to voter ID. First is the claim that millions upon millions of Americans lack adequate ID. While it’s true that the SAVE Act’s provisions for providing proof of citizenship creates novel challenges — lots of people don’t have their birth certificates and many forms of ID don’t specify citizenship — Democrats were making this argument years before the citizenship issue ripened. (To be clear, evidence of noncitizens voting in significant numbers is scant to nonexistent.)
Regardless, if the problem is that huge numbers of “marginalized” people don’t have sufficient ID to vote, that also means they don’t have good enough ID for all manner of things. Indeed, I can think of few things more likely to marginalize someone than not having ID. You can’t get a credit card, buy or rent a home, apply for welfare benefits, travel by plane or open a bank account without identification. That’s some serious marginalization.
Second, if you want people to trust the integrity of elections and the sanctity of “our democracy” waxing indignant over the idea of presenting ID when democratic majorities favor it is an odd choice. It arouses the suspicion that there’s a reason for opposing such measures. Mostly thanks to Democratic initiatives, America has made it wildly easier to vote over the last three decades. Why is it so preposterous that new safeguards be put in place amid all of the mail-in and early voting?
My theory is that at some deep level there is a dysfunctional bipartisan consensus that lax voting rules benefit Democrats. That’s why Republicans want to tighten the rules and Democrats favor loosening them. The funny thing is, I think both sides have always been wrong. Indeed, as the demographics of parties’ coalitions have changed, the assumption has gotten sillier. Over the last decade, the GOP traded “high propensity” college-educated suburban voters for non-college low-propensity voters.
Yet both parties have intensified their delusions. Voter ID is not voter suppression, and requiring voter ID will not guarantee Republican victories. It’s just a reasonable idea, albeit in an unreasonable time.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
Voter ID requirements have long enjoyed broad popular support among Americans, with polling showing 77% to 95% support across demographic groups and party affiliations, including majorities of Democrats.[1] This widespread backing predates recent political polarization, with 80% of Americans favoring ID requirements in 2006.[1]
The claim that voter ID laws inherently suppress votes for marginalized populations is overstated, particularly given that lack of identification creates barriers to numerous everyday activities beyond voting, including obtaining credit, housing, travel, and social services.[1] Addressing ID accessibility benefits voters across multiple life domains rather than targeting a single voting obstacle.
Voter fraud remains exceedingly rare, with approximately 200 documented cases resulting in court charges since the 2018 elections, making the scale of fraud risk comparatively small relative to the voting reforms implemented.[1] This rarity suggests that election security concerns justifying ID requirements warrant examination.
Democrats have significantly expanded voting access over three decades through mail-in and early voting provisions, creating a reasonable basis for implementing corresponding security measures such as identification requirements to maintain public confidence in election integrity.[1]
The partisan framing of voter ID debates obscures the reasonable middle ground available through flexible identification systems that offer multiple acceptable forms of ID and backup verification processes, allowing election security without imposing undue burdens on voters.[1]
Different views on the topic
Voter identification requirements disproportionately affect marginalized communities, with research documenting significant disparities in ID ownership among racial groups; 91% of white voters possess valid identification compared to 81% of Black voters, 82% of Latino voters, and 85% of Asian voters.[1] This disparity means strict requirements may exclude eligible voters from underrepresented populations.
Strict voter ID laws in some states accept only narrow forms of photographic identification, creating substantial barriers for vulnerable populations including minorities, people with disabilities, and low-income individuals, while states accepting broader alternatives demonstrate more inclusive approaches without compromising security.[1] Georgia’s 2021 law, for example, left over 272,000 registered voters without driver’s licenses on file, with more than half being Black residents.[2]
Voter ID requirements exist on a spectrum of stringency, and the concern among voting rights advocates increases as acceptable ID options narrow and backup mechanisms disappear.[1] States like West Virginia, which accept dozens of identification forms plus affidavits and character vouching, demonstrate that security and accessibility need not be mutually exclusive.
Public polling on voter ID support lacks nuance and may misrepresent actual voter preferences by failing to explain that strict photo ID requirements could exclude approximately 10% of eligible voters, and by not distinguishing between broad-option systems and restrictive ones.[1] Survey questions typically do not clarify these distinctions when measuring support.
Some voter ID laws appear designed with partisan motivations, particularly when they accept certain categories of ID more commonly held by Republican-leaning voters while rejecting others more common among Democratic-leaning voters, such as accepting gun permits but not student identification in certain states.[1]
Recent voting restrictions, including expanded mail-in ballot requirements and tightened absentee voting provisions, have accelerated following the 2020 election amid unsubstantiated fraud claims, raising concerns about whether these measures prioritize election security or respond to partisan motivations.[2]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Filmmaker Ondi Timoner was overseas shooting a documentary when the Eaton Fire destroyed her home of 14 years, and wiped her entire neighborhood away.
Wild theories, enduring myths and a long-overlooked suspect.
Not for want of trying – cleaner power has created lots of engine experiments, most dramatically Caltech versus MIT in the great electric car race of 1968, a story you’ll hear from the winner.
