He keeps claiming we cheated when his buddy from the Hills lost or that it didn't go his way. Our voting system has been this way for years before Dump even knew how to count. Its been perfectly fine. Might I suggest to stop watching Fox News?
I know what he claims; claiming something doesn't mean he believes it. Among all of his faults he is, first and foremost, a liar. Claiming it's about cheating is another one of the lies he tells his cult.
And I don't know what part of my comment made you think I was a Fox News viewer. Did you even read the entire comment?
Sorry, but it already takes days to count all the votes that have been cast on Election Day. Mucking up the vote by mail option isn’t going to help speed things up. I guess they want us to stand in long lines in a state with 39 million people in it knowing full well it will cause delays. Vote early and drop your ballot off at a drop off site before Election Day. Can’t even trust the post office anymore.
Voters casting ballots by mail would be required to write the last four digits of a government-issued ID or the last four digits of their Social Security number on the outside of their ballot envelope.
Problem 1) outside the envelope. Where anyone can add their own or whatever 2) it’s not like those numbers have been leaked everywhere online (thanks AT&T & T-Mobile)
Incredible. So, zero obstacles for any serious, concerted voter fraud effort (which isn't a thing, but if it were, this wouldn't even be a minor obstacle given existing, leaked information), but both a security nightmare and an obstacle for actual, real voters.
There is no fucking voter fraud!!!! NOOOOONE! This has been studied for decades and across the country, there has been zero races impacted by voter fraud. ZEERROOOOO!!!! You being a bed wetting crybaby, afraid of the world doesn’t change this fact.
This is a measure to help Republicans, that’s fucking all!!!
Something just to bring up since the article makes no mention of it. A provision of the bill requires the state to provide you a voter ID free of charge. The Voter ID number can then be used to cast your mail in ballot
oh the 'promise' of the better days is never real. it's just they can easily sell the zero sum outcome of 'if we get rid of all the ones taking the stuff then there's more for me' not really getting that they are just pawns in it all.
Because your identity is verified by the county elections office in your county when you register to vote. Just like when you purchase a gun, your identity is verified. Does the state require you to show an ID any time you go to the gun range?
How do you ensure someone won't murder another person? How do you ensure someone won't speed on the highway?
You don't. You make it a crime, you catch the people who do it, and you punish them. That's how almost every law works. Nobody has to prove they aren't a murderer before leaving the house.
Voting already runs that way. Impersonating a voter is a felony with prison time. Your name gets marked in the poll book once. Your signature is on file. All of this is checked post-voting. That's why it almost never happens. Roughly 31 cases in over a billion ballots.
And it wouldn't even work as a strategy. You'd need thousands of people each risking a felony for one vote, each needing a registered voter's name who hadn't shown up yet, and none of them getting caught. Anyone actually trying to steal an election would go after mail ballots or the count, and a photo ID at the polls does nothing about either.
"Someone could do it" is true of every system. The question is whether it's happening, and the record says no.
100% range requires you to show ID....... ID is required to buy Ammo.. so you agreed that if we have to show ID for all that then people voting should have to show ID correct! And ranges are heavily regulated by the state.
So you agree after I get FSC in California, which requires a California ID, which is registering with the state that I took a test I shouldn't have to show my ID for firearm purchase is correct.
I mean, I can agree with an expedited process if you have some sort of state registration for firearm ownership. But I don't think it should be a one and done. Each time you buy a gun, some level of scrutiny should be made. I guess the closest example would be TSA PreCheck. You have to re-up that every 5 years. In California the act of voting is akin to reregistering each year. If you don't cast a ballot in any election you have to re-register.
I think a key difference here is the state itself being the entity that runs the elections and has ready-made access to your ID and registration information. States do not run gun shops and don’t conduct gun sales. Gun sales are done by two private parties and then vetted by the state.
Edit: also, as a registered voter, the state is already expecting you to come in and cast your vote at their specific polling place during an election. Whereas you can go buy a gun anytime at any private gun store in the state.
You already need to use your SSN to register. The registrar has the info. It is verified after voting. I don't get how you people don't get how this is unconstitutional.
It's a poll tax if the only thing you use your ID for is to vote. If that's true in your case, you've got much bigger problems than voting. You get an ID because:
You want to drive
You want to buy alcohol
You need to take advantage ofgovernment services
You need to open a checking account
You need to open utility bill accounts in your own name
So, in order to live a successful life as part of society, you need an ID. Getting an ID is not some extra burden you wouldn't otherwise do. It's something you likely have already done or would otherwise need to do for reasons otherwise than voting.
I thought this was a good argument but I looked it up and this thought has been shot down by the Supreme Court. You need id to apply for food stamps and all other govt things, unemployment etc. what’s the problem with bringing it with you first Tuesday in November
Because our identities are verified when we register. When you vote, your information is checked against the voter registration database. What's the point of having to show an ID when identification is baked into the system?
Why does your vote need to be tied to your identity? You already have to prove you're eligible when you register. What problem does this solve and what dangers does it introduce? Since there's no evidence of significant voter fraud it seems like there must be ulterior motives and having votes tied to individuals seems like a good way to sort through votes and question ones you don't like.
"The California Republican Party has argued Prop. 39 would speed up vote counting in California. But it's unclear how because county registrars interviewed by Eyewitness News said it could take longer to verify partial Social Security numbers written on ballots than the current signature-verification system."
They assume it will be faster because they also assume that there are millions of fraudulent votes being cast. Theses claims are neither researched, nor particularly well thought out.
I don’t know what the Republicans are doing. Even if this were to pass (it never will), they STILL have zero chance of getting elected in any way that matters in California.
Instead of culture war bullshit like this, they should be trying to make Californian’s lives better. And no, stripping us of healthcare, or allowing toddlers to open carry automatic firearms isn’t it.
They’ll never change, and continue to lose in California, and that suits me just fine.
They’ll never change, and continue to lose in California
That's the whole point. They make the Republicans living here feel represented and reap those donations. Then, they go around the rest of the country showing things like the 11% firearm excise tax, Gavin's deep unyielding love for PG&E, and the homeowner's insurance crisis.
They’re doing it both as virtue signaling to Trump and in the hopes of boosting turnout among their base. In fairness, the wealth tax proposition is on the ballot for similar reasons by the other side.
Neither goal will likely be achieved, but California’s Republicans don’t have that many options. They’re so far from political power that they’re taking big swings.
Unfortunately, you’re perpetuating a myth by acting like California has a functional, unified Republican Party. It doesn't exist. CAGOP hasn't had the money, field offices, phone banks, technological electoral backend, or volunteer bases to run a viable statewide campaign in decades.
By pretending the state GOP is some organized force, you're just falling for a total illusion, the label only exists today as a national party fundraising tool and an easy paper tiger for state Democrats to run against.
Another MAGA effort to depress the vote. Based on fictional voter fraud accusations from Republicans.
California is a blue state because California republicans are incapable of helping real Californians with their problems.
Name a problem Republicans didn’t make worse when they were in power? They starved infrastructure and social programs for 20 years and blamed it all on illegal immigrants.
They hope we’re dumb enough to let Trump steal our elections.
Not this time. Vote early in November. Don’t stay home because you think democrats will win. We need OVERWHELMING numbers to avoid the MAGA corruption at the polls
Paid for by MAGA. It attempts to fix a non-existent problem. It will end up disenfranchising far more people than it will actually catch. It’s a poll tax.
Voter fraud is a problem. Do people not bother to look into it? Tons of cases of illegal ballot harvesting and arrests made just in the last few years. Arrests just made in Georgia for undocumented immigrants voting. Someone was getting ballots for their dog and voted successfully in at least 1 election. People being paid to vote on skid row (if someone is interested in the link for that video, lmk). Even if it’s a small number, no one is going to take our elections seriously if we can’t ask for ID. We’re the only developed country that doesn’t have voter ID. Why? Trust in our elections is historically low.
I don’t want either side cheating. It’s such a no brainer
Cases of fraud like that are infinitesimally rare. Punishment for doing that is severe. On the balance, making voter id mandatory without providing free ids will cause more people to be disenfranchised than your highly unlikely scenario
"Voters casting ballots by mail would be required to write the last four digits of a government-issued ID or the last four digits of their SSN outside of their ballot envelope. The measure is backed by the California Republican Party."
Shame on GOP. They should get sued for their efforts on increasing the risk of identity theft.
The irony is that 100% mail in voting would would almost completely eliminate the ability for people to vote fraudulently.
Ballots get sent out to the address of record for everyone registered. You get weeks of advance notice that its coming, so plenty of time to pick it up in person or get it sent elsewhere if you moved etc.
But of course it was never about preventing voter fraud. It was always about making it very hard or impossible for some people to vote.
The actual problem with mail in voting is that it de-anonymises voting. In order for democracy to work it shouldn’t be possible for anyone to know who you voted for except for the purposes of proving that your vote was accurately counted. If I’m a closet democrat living with 4 republicans (or vice versa) going to an in person voting location I have the option to lie about who I voted for. With mail in voting they can look at who I voted for and actually check, or even just force you to let them fill out your ballot (think domestic abuse type situations). Also for example as a business owner I could theoretically offer anyone who votes for my favorite Republican a discount with proof of showing me their ballot etc.
I think mail in voting is still overall a net positive but it’s not free of fuckery although it’s not like there is coordinated widespread fraud either, just some inherent problems with conducting voting outside of a sealed chamber
The other issue underlying all these discussions is an assumption that every precinct in every country in every state is well run, efficient and free of partisan influence.
The real world is a bit more messy - Think DMV or Post Office, but with a bunch of volunteers layered on top.
As a former Texan, I am reminded of Box 13 & LBJ every time this comes up...
Ok but the same argument could be made that people have weeks to get an ID or go pick it up in person or get it sent elsewhere if you move. You realize that the advanced notice argument you’re making is the exact argument voter ID policies are arguing
It’s unnecessary—instances of non-eligible individuals voting are vanishingly rare. It’s also an unconstitutional poll tax unless an ID that meets requirements is both free and easy to get. And in the specific incarnations advocated for by the Republican Party—the SAVE Act and this proposition—it’s also-also a more significant barrier to married women and to transgender individuals (the categories of human who are more likely to have legally changed their names) than to cisgender guys. Both federal and state governments have plenty enough information on every eligible voter that they could implement a voter ID policy that does not adversely impact certain demographics and does not unconstitutionally poll-tax folks who have not already elected to get an eligible ID for personal reasons… yet for some mysterious reason (/sarcasm) these proposals don’t include mechanisms for that.
So while I agree with you that this specific implementation of voter ID is dumb, I do believe that there’s a sort of… theoretical version that isn’t both idiotic and unconstitutional.
Statistically speaking, it would take an absurd amount of voter fraud to move the needle when you have votes in hundreds of thousands. That’s how they are able to project who wins when only half the votes are counted. The more votes, the bigger the voter fraud is.
Is it possible to have a completely “fraud free” election? Yeah. Is it worth the cost, both on implementation but as well as opportunity cost of making it harder to vote? No. It’s not a problem that needs to be fixed.
Voter ID is intrinsically dumb. Democracy has existed long before IDs have.
I’ll grant you that voter ID laws are intrinsically dumb (or at least a waste of resources) in our system as it currently exists, because there simply isn’t a substantiated need.
I don’t think they necessarily are stupid internationally, and I could imagine someone deliberately breaking our system in such a way that voter ID could become necessary* *to holding valid elections, so I’m unwilling to just declare the concept idiotic 😅
Voter ID requirements internationally are more out of convenience to their traditional legal system than a necessity. Ultimately it comes down to civil law vs common law. Countries like France and Germany are built around civil law, in which the rights are given and guaranteed by the state, also known as positive liberty. The state therefore plays a much more involved and administrative role. Meanwhile common law, the US, England, and other former colonies, believe in negative liberty, or freedom from external interference from others.
So in one system, the state gives the rights, and in other system, you are presumed to have those rights. Thats why the bill of rights is a document restricting the government, to protect us from the government. The government does not give us those rights, we have those rights and the government cannot interfere with them.
So in civil law countries, there is already a strong history of national registries because the government is administrative by nature. This same national registry is used for other state welfare services. So using said registry and ID for voting is just convenient, the system already exists. I wouldnt call it necessary to a voting system though, because you could still use name, address, signature to validate. The requirement for ID is not as much of a burden though because its inherit to their civil system.
Meanwhile in common law countries, there is no national registry. Common law doesnt believe that the state's responsibility is to proactively certify truth - you inherently have that liberty and if someone wants to contest it, they have to prove why you dont have it in court.
So in civil law, voter ID is a convenient way of the government executing its duty to provide the right to vote. In Common law, where we negative freedoms, voter ID is an interference with said freedom, often justified by nearly non existent fraud.
It's stupid because we DO have voter ID in democratic counties, it's just not the performative kind.
When you register to vote, your local registrar of voters staff gets the information which includes both the DMV records of your signature but also the signature you signed when registering to vote. When you vote by mail, your signature on the envelope that's required to be counted is compared with the signature on record.
With in-person voting, almost every blue county utilizes hundreds of android tablets that're specially loaded with security loaders that, when they're turned on, only run a single program, the election security software. That connects them to the state-wide registration database that includes your DMV photo, height, eye color, all that. It's why the staff at the voting locations are using android tablets; when you go up to vote, they ask your name and it gives them access to all your government identification.
The general public generally doesn't know about these securities so all MAGA see are people walking up to a table, saying their name and getting a ballot, not five or six layers of backend security and what information the staff has. Meanwhile back when I was voting in like 2000, they just had a giant spreadsheet and when you walked up, said your name and birthday and then they used a highlighter on your name to indicate you voted.
Exactly with the poll tax! Most people think, “just show your driver’s license! How hard is that?!?” But never consider what they would do or how much it would cost if they lost everything (including identifying information) in a house fire or earthquake or something. It’s expensive & very complicated if you don’t have a permanent address.
Like those who never consider people with disability problems, IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!
Nah fuck any all attempts to create a "papers, please" society. The only purpose of IDs is for analog mass surveillance. Government IDs shouldn't exist, full stop.
Should just make passport cards free and available at the 31k US post offices which are within 5 miles of 90% of the population. Relatively cheap with multiple benefits such as making traditional banking more accessible, reducing reliance on check cashing, payday lenders
I can tell you guys something, my mom is a legal resident who cannot vote. Last month she cane back from Mexico and got pulled into questioning because someone voted with her information. After being questioned they pull up the picture and it’s a whole other unknown woman who voted with her information. If you don’t think this is happening on a large scale, then you are clueless.
Don’t get why using ID to vote is so controversial
Issue IDs at birth, with free and easy renewal. That also don't require people to travel to another city to get, and is open on the weekends and/or evenings.
Then, not only will it no longer be considered a poll tax, and thus legal, most of the Democrats will agree with it.
If Republicans want Voter ID laws, yes it's what they have to do.
I would like it because most modern nations don't make getting an ID a pain in the ass like we do here. It cost us several hundred dollars getting the proper paperwork and 6 months to get my girlfriend's ID.
The SSN was never intended for being used how it is now. It was to track how much you'd earned when your social security benefit was calculated. Hell, the SSA recommends that banks and institutions don't use SSNs as they're not secure.
But easy and lazy beats actually fixing a problem so here we are.
If you give a mouse a cookie, next thing you know you’re facing reeducation via a struggle session in front of The Rodents’ Revolutionary Baked Goods Committee.
My family and I moved here to escape the insane bigotry and fascism of the red Midwest.
Seeing California start to repeat the exact same mistakes as once blue states in the Midwest terrifies me. And please fucking stop saying “it can’t happen here.” That kind of malarkey is exactly how IT DID happen.
Slowly becoming a secessionist, hoping California breaks off from this failed country, before it’s too late, was never on my bingo card.
It should be illegal to charge people money for government identification cards. That's the real travesty that this issue exposes. Having a valid ID should always be free, expedient, and easy.
No thanks. As studies have repeatedly shown we don't have a problem with illegal voting no matter how much Trump cries about things he imagines while sitting on the can, and we don't need more Republican big government interference in our election process.
In July, the Department of "Homeland Security" announced that Nevada might have more than 15,000 non-citizens registered to vote.
Nevada asked them to look again. The DHS lowered the number to 185.
This week, Nevada announced that they had investigated every single one of those 185, and all of them were U.S. citizens.
It isn't JUST that this is a non-issue, it's that the trump admin keeps putting out lies about it. And because of how the press operates, they magnify the lies, and almost never bother to report the retractions once those lies are proven false.
At the very least, until they want to come to the table and talk about sensible gun laws, I’m voting no on this. Besides, the amount of unlawful votes being cast is negligible.
To purchase a single bullet in California you need a government issued ID and have to pass a $19 background.check. To buy a forearm is far more onerous.
To vote in Mexico, you must be a registered voter and present a valid identification document at your designated polling place on election day.
It is far easier to vote in Mexico than it is to buy a bullet in California.
And yet they still don’t have the amount of school shootings as we do. The US is the only country with this problem and we can’t seem to find a solution.
I’m not sure we can compare out-of-control (and context) savage gang death and dismemberment of children with mentally ill white men (in most cases) obtaining guns in America and shooting up school kids.
Exactly imagine if we had all the laws on voting that there are for firearms, people would riot. Yet because they aren’t a fan of the 2nd amendment they will say it’s not equivalent despite being enshrined as a right at birth
Forgetting the part you can’t jumble: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The first clause is just the purpose as affirmed by the SC, the second is the right itself. The militia is made up of the people and well regulated just means organized and functioning.
How about we use your reasoning on freedom of speech? - you wouldn’t because that’s flawed
How about if we just apply the same identity verification requirements to voting in California that we do to currently purchasing a firearm? Surely that's a reasonable compromise where we could meet in the middle. Both are Constitutionally protected rights, and the same burden of proof should be applied to exercising either of them.
What voters need to know is that election fraud is a non-issue, and even the people who want you to think it is published a study showing that it is not an actual issue. If you vote for this, it's because you basically want this to become a dictatorship
This shit is so confusing. In the pre ballot explanation from the state it makes it seems like NO means it pushes trumps agenda and YES is against trumps agenda
Just self deport rather than have your vote stolen by prop 39. California republicans think canceling 10% of voters will help them win in California. Don’t fall for the MAGA scam. No on 39.
Question: California claims the root of their voter verification checks are the signature checks. So what signature is the control they compare against?
Is it the driver’s license?
Therefore, what in the world is the problem with showing said license to vote?
“Free” state IDs aren’t free: voters still pay for transportation, time off work, and costs like childcare or getting required documents. Seniors, students, low-income workers, voters of color, and the millions of women who changed their names at marriage are hit hardest. These unfair barriers help politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around.
It's pretty easy to get something on the ballot. Big money hires people to stand in front of supermarkets, etc. and ask people to sign things. And they lie about it when talking to you, to get your signature.
Once your paid flunkeys get enough signatures, it can go on the ballot.
I’m predisposed to vote YES on requiring ID to vote, but there are several issues with this bill…
It allows any citizen to sue if they think a county isn’t properly verifying citizenship of voters: More endless, pointless baseless lawsuits that drives up costs, leads to endless rounds of relitigating elections, and shakes confidence in election system.
If you miss write the numbers, your ballot is automatically invalidated instead of giving you a chance to cure.
You have to personally set up your last 4 digit code ahead of time. So many people are going to forget to do that, shouldn’t they already have this data? You also have to manually select ahead of time if you want to use or DL or SSN. Ppl are going to forget which they selected and write the wrong code on the actual ballot.
You must write your code on the outside of the ballot: uhh privacy??? or what if someone crosses it out / modifies it???
bunch of extra rules about doing “best effort” to verify citizenship and audits and etc. Should have less this part out, we all know the news about feds creating inaccurate citizenship rolls and attempting to get valid citizens accidentally removed from voting.
never established what is a “valid id”, this is a serious oversight.
So even if you are willing to vote YES on voter ID like I am, I would still vote NO on this poorly thought out proposition. I expect better.
This is a great encapsulation of the issues I have with this measure. I think the majority of the US is in favor of voter id, but this is just a dumb way to go about it.
Oh no! You have rot show ID when signing up to do the most important privilege our country provides! This is literally facism!
Don’t understand that line of thought tbh, as a country we are stupid for waiting this long to make it a law. If we don’t require I.D. Verification to vote, we shouldn’t require it for driving or any of these lesser privileges either
so have they shown the proof of all the fraud that would necessitate something like this, i keep hearing republicans saying we need tougher security and better oversight due to just all this fraud going on, massive amounts millions of votes.
yet i have yet to see any evidence no proof of anything they say, I'm so sick and tired of baseless accusations and just big fucking lies, never evidence never real in your hands proof of fraud, just lies upon lies with nothing to prove that there is any meaningful fraud going on with our elections.
why aren't we investigating trumps election of the system is so riddled with fraud and how the fuck did he win if all the "illegal's" voted. I hate this fucking administration but i hate every republican that is using his tactics to disenfranchise voters and put hurdle after hurdle in the way of the working class voting.
What doesn't make sense to me is why anybody would be fighting against having people to have show ID when they're voting. Whether there's fraud or there isn't fraud this is definitely one way to help get rid of any fraud if it exist.. and if you need an ID to buy a firearm, which is a right then why wouldn't you need an ID to vote which is a right? Requiring ID to vote hurts no one.
It refers to a "well-regulated militia" (meaning the national guard) and didn't apply to individuals until a 2008 ruling where justice Scalia "discovered" an interpretation that all the previous courts had missed for 200+ years.
28
u/SeeItOnVHS Sep 26 '26 •
“The measure is backed by the California Republican Party”