Staff Reports
In the ongoing battle over voting regulations, the Save Act has stirred up quite the storm, particularly when it comes to the simple question of whether or not voters should show ID. Congressman Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey provides a straightforward argument: if you need to show ID for everyday activities like banking, flying, or entering federal buildings, why on earth shouldn’t you need one to vote? It’s a sentiment shared by many Americans across the political spectrum—Republicans and Democrats alike. The idea that voters don’t need to prove their identity is bizarre, puzzling, and at best, a head-scratcher for those who appreciate common sense.
The perplexity doesn’t stop there. Many Americans are flabbergasted by the Democrats’ stance against voter ID requirements, which seems ironically contradictory. After all, the left generally supports regulations where safety and security are concerned, such as firearm purchases requiring ID. Yet, when it comes to the sanctity of the vote—a foundational element of democracy—they seem to lose their taste for regulation. One might wonder if there’s a method to this madness, or as Congressman Van Drew suggests, a blatant attempt to allow non-citizens a say in American elections. Such a notion might send shivers down the spine of anyone who values the principles that underpin the nation.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, known for her moderate stance, made headlines for expressing a willingness to drop certain stringent ID requirements, namely passports or birth certificates, which she deemed excessive. She supports the idea of using a state-issued ID instead, seeing it as a reasonable middle ground. However, Van Drew acknowledges this compromise but raises a valid concern: some states, including his own New Jersey, issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Hence, the question remains whether state-issued IDs suffice in preserving electoral integrity or whether they simply introduce new vulnerabilities.
An eye-opening contrast persists between the procedures in Congress compared to public voting. Members of Congress must use identification to register votes, which begs the question: why shouldn’t the public face the same requirement on election day? If IDs aren’t necessary, then let’s allow everyone—with no checks—to cast votes in Congress. Of course, such a proposal is absurd, which emphasizes the inconsistency of the current system. The right to vote, cherished and fiercely defended by countless Americans throughout history, deserves the utmost protection.
As it stands, the future of the Save Act is uncertain. Congressman Van Drew voices his skepticism about the Act passing, largely due to the current political climate and the challenge posed by the filibuster in the Senate. While hopes and prayers abound, the reality remains bleak, with progress being hampered by a procedural hurdle that some argue has outlived its original purpose. One can’t help but wonder what changes, if any, would occur should the balance of power shift once more. Until then, the debate over voter ID rages on, emblematic of broader concerns over electoral integrity and democratic values.
