Joseph Zambon
President Donald J. Trump underscored what he believes is the need for voter ID laws during the first stop of his disaster assessment tour in North Carolina and California. Speaking on the tarmac in Asheville, North Carolina, alongside Governor Josh Hawley and First Lady Melania Trump, Trump addressed reporters’ questions about his upcoming visit to California to survey firestorm damage.
While discussing disaster recovery, the president also criticized California’s water management policies and shifted the conversation to his advocacy for voter identification requirements.
“I want to see voter ID so the people have a chance to vote,” Trump stated. “I want voter ID for the people of California—they all want it. Right now, you don’t have voter ID. People want to have voter identification. You want to have proof of citizenship. Ideally, you have one-day voting. But I want voter ID as a start.”
Republican Efforts on Voter ID
Trump’s renewed focus on voter ID laws aligns with broader Republican efforts to address what they claim are vulnerabilities in the electoral system. Despite little evidence of widespread voter fraud, the push for stricter voting requirements has persisted, championed by figures such as New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R-NY24), co-chair of the House Republican Election Integrity Caucus.
Critics argue these efforts are rooted in the baseless “big lie” of election fraud, a narrative that has fueled Republican election reform campaigns. Yet, the recent Republican victories in the November elections—including Trump’s return to the White House and GOP control of both chambers of Congress—call into question the claims of systemic election vulnerabilities.
If Republicans Are Winning Elections, Why Do They Advocate for Voter ID Laws?
Because they want to keep winning and become the dominant political party in America.
Their strategy is to use voter ID requirements to favor Republican candidates by suppressing voter turnout among key Democratic-leaning constituencies.
According to the League of Women Voters, “Not only do these measures disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly, and student voters, but they also fail to effectively address any real issues related to election integrity—the very thing advocates say these measures are designed to do…Their main impact is that they promote voter suppression… Restrictive voting measures are designed to maintain the power structures that benefit those in control — largely white legislators… and reduced turnout among vulnerable populations.”
The League of Women Voters cited Texas as a case study. After enacting strict voter ID laws in 2013, the state ruled 608,470 registered voters—about 4.5% of the electorate—ineligible to vote. The voters most affected were disproportionately Black, Native American, low-income, elderly, and rural residents, some of which are more likely to support Democratic candidates. By reducing participation among these demographics, voter ID laws effectively skew the electorate toward Republican-leaning voters.
What Is Acceptable ID?
The issue extends beyond the concept of voter ID to the specific types of acceptable identification. For instance, college student IDs are frequently deemed unacceptable, disenfranchising younger voters who tend to align with Democrats. Similarly, individuals with name changes due to marriage or divorce – a younger demographic that skews Democratic – may be ineligible to vote if their updated name does not match voter rolls.
Voter ID Becomes National Identity Card
Finally, I argued in a previous post that the requirement for voter ID is a slippery slope that leads to a national ID. This is the logical extension of voter ID, particularly in an increasingly authoritarian America. In this scenario, all Americans would be required to have acceptable IDs on their person at all times, which must be produced upon demand.
The Slippery Slope: ICE Raids in NJ Round Up Citizens and a Veteran
A recent example of government agents demanding citizens provide proof of identity occurred just this morning. During an ICE raid of a seafood supplier in New Jersey, enforcement officers detained several people, including a U. S. citizen and a U.S. Veteran. ICE wouldn’t accept his statement or his identification as proof of citizenship maybe because he is Hispanic.
From the Independent, “Federal immigration authorities arrested at least one U.S. citizen and a military veteran during a raid inside a New Jersey fish market, according to city and state officials. Roughly one dozen Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived unannounced at Ocean Seafood Depot on Thursday without a warrant, demanding to see documents for employees. Agents made ‘no prior announcement’ when they stormed into the market, ‘blocking entrances, scrambling up delivery ramps’ and ‘banging on bathroom doors,’ Amy Torres with New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice told reporters Friday.”
According to ICE, officers “may encounter U.S. citizens while conducting fieldwork and may request identification to establish an individual’s identity, as was the case during a targeted enforcement operation.”
The NJ raid doesn’t sound like ICE’s “may request.” It sounds more like “will demand” and “will be detained or arrested if their identity is not satisfactorily established.”
The incident has drawn sharp criticism from the Mayor of Newark, immigrant rights advocates, and local officials, who question the treatment of U.S. citizens during these enforcement actions.
“Why was a U.S. citizen interrogated? Why was a military veteran’s credential and honor called into question?” asked Torres. The operation has fueled concerns about the potential overreach of identity verification requirements, especially in an era where voter ID laws are gaining traction nationwide.
Champions of Voter ID
In Western New York, Republican Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R-NY24) and Republican Congressman Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY23) are vocal proponents of voter ID. Langworthy, who gained notoriety defending the rights of pet rodents, extolled the benefits of voter ID during a telephone town hall, claiming it would “make elections as perfect as they can be.” However, Langworthy’s remarks sparked controversy after he urged participants to advocate for voter ID laws, violating House Communication guidelines.
Tenney’s and Langworthy’s districts are heavily gerrymandered to favor Republicans, making them “safe” seats. These districts are so secure that even a scandal does little to jeopardize Republican control. For instance, former Western New York Congressman Chris Collins won reelection despite being charged with a felony following an FBI investigation. It was only after his conviction and subsequent resignation that he left office.
Tenney and Langworthy: Party First, Country Last
Critics argue that Tenney and Langworthy’s push for voter ID laws is less about ensuring electoral integrity and more about advancing a partisan agenda designed to suppress voter turnout. By advocating for voter ID, they aim to skew the electorate in favor of the Republican Party while discouraging participation among Democratic-leaning groups such as minorities, students, and lower-income voters.
Ironically, their efforts could trigger an unintended consequence: the ] adoption of a national ID. While a national ID might seem like a solution to inconsistent voter ID laws across states, such a system would provoke widespread opposition due to concerns over privacy, government overreach, and its potential misuse. In their quest to secure political advantage, Tenney, Langworthy, and their Republican colleagues are opening the door to a policy that will be deeply unpopular with most Americans.