Should voters have to show identification before they cast a ballot?
There are good reasons to say yes. Voter ID can deter impersonation, promote orderly administration and reassure the public that elections are open only to eligible voters. Proof of citizenship at registration has a similarly understandable aim. Only citizens may vote in federal elections, and states should take that obligation seriously.
But an understandable end does not make every mechanism to achieve it wise — as is the case with the Save America Act. The bill, which lays out documentary requirements for voting and registering to vote, has become something of a social media phenomenon, with some Republicans in Congress calling to abolish the filibuster to usher it through the Senate and demanding that all other business be put aside until the bill is passed.
The problem with the legislation is not that it tries to verify identity or citizenship. The problem is that it replaces every state’s voting law with a national code, written in broad strokes that displace important nuances in how states run elections.
The bill would require documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections and a photo ID to vote in them. But states conduct federal and state elections on the same ballots.
A rule that applies only to federal elections either forces states to change their systems or requires them to administer two elections at once. Arizona, which runs a separate federal election for voters who cannot demonstrate proof of citizenship, has experience with such a bifurcated system and the complexity that comes with it.
Consider voter ID. The bill would allow a small number of valid physical photo IDs: an identification from the state department of motor vehicles, a passport, a military ID or a tribal ID. That list would displace every state’s ID choices for federal elections. Texas and Iowa could no longer use their more forgiving rules that permit recently expired driver’s licenses.
The legislation would prevent states such as Arkansas from accepting digital IDs and would exclude Alaska’s hunting and fishing licenses and Florida’s concealed carry licenses, even though those states have judged these documents adequate.
One can favor voter ID and still think that odd. Texas and Florida lawmakers are hardly indifferent to election security, but the bill would tell them their ID laws are inadequate — not because they failed to verify voters, but because they used a different list of IDs.
The one-size-fits-all rule for proof of citizenship has the same problem. It would be more restrictive than Florida, for instance, where a new proof-of-citizenship law lets the state rely more heavily on verification through government records, but less restrictive than Arizona.
For voters whose birth certificate doesn’t match their current name, the bill would allow states to accept an affidavit attesting the applicant’s previous name. Arizona, by contrast, does not. That is a meaningful accommodation on the part of the Save Act, and some criticism overlooks it.
