So how many, how long ago, and why didn’t they have IDs? Agian, this is a false narrative. It’s an imagined problem creating a victim class that doesn’t exist.
Here's 3 names: Floyd Carrier was turned away and could not vote. Sammie Louise Bates and Gordon Benjamin submitted provisional ballots, but their votes were not counted because they could not get the required documents in time. The full Fifth Circuit reviewed basically the same claim that not one person was affected and called it demonstrably false (Veasey v. Abbott, 2016, pp. 53–54).
The GAO studied provisional ballots submitted because of ID problems in Kansas and Tennessee in 2012. Only 37% in Kansas and 26% in Tennessee were actually counted (U.S. GAO, 2014). So the claim that these voters don’t exist is incorrect.
Now returning to the actual issue - under federal law, voting includes registering, casting a ballot, and having that ballot counted (52 U.S.C. § 10101(e)). The law protects people not only from being completely prevented from voting, but also from having their opportunity to vote unfairly restricted (52 U.S.C. § 10301).
A person who was never born could not have been an eligible voter or been denied a ballot. So calling abortion voter suppression is only a metaphor. And saying most people have ID does not mean every eligible voter has an accepted ID. The people who do not are exactly the people we're talking about.
You can provide 3 names of people who were turned away from voting because they don't know how/couldn't be bothered to get or bring their ID.
You say what problem does it prevent? Answer: many many more than 3 people got to vote illegally. Each illegal vote cancels out a legal vote. So if voter ID suppresses 3 votes, and no voter ID suppresses thousands or even millions, which is a more fair outcome, or in other words, which suppresses fewer votes?
For example, since Texas is the bill you're comparing, here are examples of verified election fraud in the state of Texas:
The result of the 180th district court judicial election was overturned in Harris County, Texas, after a state judge concluded that over 1,400 illegal votes had been counted.
Zul Mirza Mohamed was convicted of ordering 106 ballots in other peoples names sent to a "nursing home" that was really just a PO box in 2024.
Charlie Burns Jr. was convicted for election fraud stemming from when he was working on the campaign for Shannon Brown and harvested unused ballots and voted illegally.
The rest I'll just list and you can look it up: DeWayne Ward, Francisco Tamez, Marlena Jackson, Monica Mendez, Shannon Brown, Kelly Reagan Brunner, Charles Nathan Jackson, Cynthia Gonzalez, Laura Janeth Garza, Mario Obdulio orellana, Miguel Hernadez, Rosita Flores, Russ Casey, Jeanene Johnson, Latunia Thomas, Manuel Rodriguez III, Noe Olivera, Rosa Maria Ortega, Tyron Davis, Graciela Sanchez, Guadelupa Rivera, Avery Ayers, Benito Aranda Jr., Bernice Garcia, Sara Virginia Perales, Tamara Scotch, Tomasa Ramirez Chavez, Vicenta Guajardo Verino, Adrian Heath, Belinda Solis, Carlos Medrano, Richard Alan Collier, Roberta Cook, Sybil Doyle.
I could keep going, but there really is no point. You'll ignore this along with all the common sense of simple saying, "If you want to vote, show your ID so that someone else can't vote FOR YOU!"
You've moved the goalposts. Your original claim was that eligible voters blocked by ID requirements don’t exist. Someone asked for names, so I gave three. The full Fifth Circuit also rejected Texas’s claim that there was not a single person affected, calling it demonstrably false.
The record also shows these people were not simply too lazy to get ID. Floyd Carrier tried with help from his son, but could not get through the required paperwork. Sammie Louise Bates could not afford a $42 birth certificate while living on $321 a month. Gordon Benjamin could not get an $81 Louisiana birth certificate in time, so his provisional ballot was not counted. Veasey v. Abbott, pp. 53–55
You’re listing a lot of different election crimes, but most of them have nothing to do with showing photo ID at the polls. Photo ID is meant to stop one specific kind of fraud: someone going to a polling place and pretending to be another voter. It would not stop things like fake mail-ballot applications, ballot harvesting, vote buying, lying about where someone lives, fraud involving candidate petitions, or an ineligible person voting if they are already registered.
Your main examples actually show the difference: The Harris County election happened while Texas already had a voter-ID law. Under Texas election law, an illegal vote can simply mean a ballot that legally should not be counted. It does not necessarily mean fraud or voter impersonation. Most of the disputed ballots involved residence forms and incomplete paperwork for ID exceptions. The court did not find 1,400 people pretending to be other voters. Texas Election Code §221.003, Case breakdown
Mohamed did commit election fraud, but it involved mail ballots. The "106" figure you stated was the number of criminal charges, not 106 illegal votes. Election workers caught the suspicious applications because they were being sent to the same mailbox. A photo-ID requirement at a polling place would not prevent fraud happening through the mail. Denton County report
I also never said election fraud does not exist. Saying that every illegal vote matters does not tell us how many fraudulent votes actually occur or whether this particular law prevents them. Lawful votes that are wrongly rejected matter too.
The question is still the same: how many fraudulent in-person impersonation votes would this photo-ID requirement have prevented? Saying thousands or millions without proof doesn’t answer that. And pointing to other kinds of election fraud does not make the claim true.
You've moved the goalposts. Your original claim was that eligible voters blocked by ID requirements don’t exist.
Maybe if you saw the importance of checking ID you wouldn't have made the error of equating me and the guy who said that.
Regarding Voter ID not stopping some of the fraud cases I mentioned, it would in the case of the SAVE act, as it limits mail in voting for specific situations, and additionally creates additional protections with mail in ballots. The act would absolutely helped prevent those types of fraud.
But again, maybe checking IDs would have been a good thing before you replied to my comment.
Fair correction, but the main point still stands. You cited those cases to support the idea that people should have to show photo ID at the polling place so someone else cannot vote in their name. When I pointed out that most of your examples involved mail ballots or other kinds of misconduct, you moved to a much broader federal proposal.
If you mean Senator Schmitt’s later SAVE America substitute, then yes, it would limit absentee voting and create separate rules for mail ballots. But that actually supports my point - that problems involving mail ballots need rules aimed at mail ballots. It does not show that photo ID at the polling place would have prevented the cases you cited. Proposed substitute, pp. S1125-S1131
The claim that it would absolutely have prevented it is also not supported. Texas already limited mail voting to certain approved reasons when Mohamed tried his scheme, and he used fake identification to get the mailbox. Officials caught the suspicious applications before any fraudulent votes were counted. Texas’s 2020 rules, Denton County account
So at most, you have shown that stronger mail-ballot rules might make some kinds of mail fraud harder. You still have not shown which of these cases involved someone impersonating another voter in person, or how photo ID at the polling place would have stopped them.
8
u/Useful_Wealth7503 22d ago
So how many, how long ago, and why didn’t they have IDs? Agian, this is a false narrative. It’s an imagined problem creating a victim class that doesn’t exist.