Thirty-five states currently have photo ID requirements for a voter to prove their identity before they are handed a ballot at a polling place. If Nancy Pelosi's "HR 1" bill makes it past the Senate and to President Biden's desk, those laws will be nullified.
Supporters of this abomination will call that assertion a lie or partial truth or whatever other euphemism "fact-checkers" wish to utilize. But that's only because they ignore the English language.
HR 1 nullifies existing state photo ID requirements. Nullifies them.
nullify verb
nul·li·fy | \ 'n?-l?-?fi \
nullified; nullifying
transitive verb
1: to make null; especially: to make legally null and void
2: to make of no value or consequence a promise later nullified
HR 1 does not ban photo ID requirements. It does not erase photo ID requirements. It does not do away with photo ID requirements. It nullifies them. The state photo ID laws will remain on the books in those thirty-five states; they will just be useless.
HR 1 would force a state with photo ID laws (which the bill describes as "excessively onerous") to offer a voter without photo ID the option to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that they are who they claim to be. Then that voter would be allowed to vote without presenting a photo ID for identification.
HR 1 nullifies existing state photo ID requirements.
Fact check that.
Why is this important? Because if you are in one of those thirty-five states, you and your fellow citizens have determined that ensuring that only those who are legally allowed to vote should do so. Photo ID is one of many important steps to ensure just that.
Voter ID protects your vote.
Opponents will say, "It's already a felony to vote under someone else's identity." They're right. They also ignore that this law is rarely investigated. What branch or division of your recently "defunded" police department will be devoting resources to hunt down people who showed up to vote as someone else?
It is also a felony to cash a check that isn't made out to you. Do banks use the honor system the same way our polling locations do and just trust that the fear of prosecution keeps people from attempting to cash a check made out to another individual? Of course not. That would be stupid. The bank asks for a photo ID for verification of identity before handing over cash.
This protects the bank, protects their money and.... if you are a customer of that bank, it protects your money.
Why don't we protect our voting system with the same basic precaution?
Photo ID at a bank prevents crime and protects the bank.
Voter ID prevents crime and protects your vote.
It really is that simple.
As HR 1 meanders its way through the Senate, there will be a full-throated and well-funded effort to push this abomination through under the guise of fairness and equal protection. Don't fall for it (I'm talking to you, Sen. Manchin).
If the discussion is about disenfranchisement, let's understand something fundamental: Every vote cast by an ineligible voter disenfranchises a legal, eligible voter. That's how it works.
The disenfranchised in a system where a voter's identity can't be verified are those who verify their identity, follow the law and cast a legal ballot.
We hear the phrase "voter suppression" a lot in this debate. We should not shy away from it. You bet I want to suppress the illegal, ineligible votes. Why don't the Democrats?
Some votes (like those of non-citizens, or underage citizens, or duplicate voters) should be suppressed.
The majority of states have wisely put up some safeguards to help weed out many of the ineligible votes that would take place in a system that follows the HR 1 guidelines. Voter ID is just one of them, and in the upcoming days, we will address more problems with this atrocious bill.
But, for today, know this fundamental fact: Voter ID protects your vote. Say it loud, say it proud, and, if you're so inclined, share this article far and wide on your social media platform.
This fight is engaged right now in Washington, DC, and the only way to ensure our voting system moves in a fairer and more secure direction is to stop HR 1 and demand our states keep existing safeguards and add many more.
Every legal, valid vote should be counted, and all the rest should be investigated.
That's not too much to ask... it's the least you should demand.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member