Should Photo-ID Be Required To Cast A Ballot In U.S. Elections ?

[sear]

Adam Schiff confronted on polling showing overwhelming support for requiring photo ID to vote​

California senator argues photo ID requirements are a way to 'suppress the vote'​

By Hanna Panreck Fox News / Published February 8, 2026 5:54pm EST

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was confronted by a poll that found a majority of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote — which the liberal senator said would disenfranchise voters.
ABC's Jonathan Karl began by asking Schiff about whether Democrats and Republicans could reach a compromise on supporting showing photo ID when voting, as Republicans are pushing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Some Democrats are comparing the SAVE Act to "Jim Crow 2.0."

"Jonathan, what you've just asked is essentially: Republicans have created distrust in the elections by making claims of nonexistent fraud in the elections, and shouldn't we use the distrust they've created in order to enact a voter suppression law, which is the SAVE Act, which would require people to have a birth certificate or passport — documents that millions of Americans don't have. Almost half the country doesn't have a passport, and I don't know where many millions of people would even find a birth certificate," Schiff responded.

Adam Schiff confronted on polling showing overwhelming support for requiring photo ID to vote

Sen. Adam Schiff was confronted on Sunday about polling that 83% support photo ID requirements for voting, which he argues disenfranchises voters.

www.foxnews.com

Should photo ID be required at U.S. election vote poll locations?

And if so, what corresponding measure should apply for those voting by mail?

 

[Shiftless2]

He's right - it would suppress disenfranchise voters.

Millions of Americans don't have either a passport or birth certificate. Only about 50% of adult Americans have a passport and about 10% don't have a birth certificate either (further a birth certificate doesn't include a photo).

BTW, if your definition of photo ID includes a drivers license a surprisingly large number of people don't drive.

And the requirements for obtaining photo ID vary. When my wife renewed her passport after we got married she wanted it to show her married name. No problem - she just provided a copy of our marriage certificate and that was acceptable for her passport. Thing is, that marriage certificate (which was the only one we had) was issued by the church where we were married not by some government office. But when it came time to renew her driver's license that certificate wasn't good enough to support her change of name. We had to get a marriage certificate from the government - I spent too much time on the phone tracking that down but it was acceptable.

That said, ignoring the issues around obtaining either document, neither is free.

As of 2026, a new adult U.S. passport book costs $130 for the application fee plus a $35 execution fee, totaling $165 for first-time applicants. Renewals (form DS-82) cost $130.

 

[sear]

"He's right -" S2 #2

OK
The idea being, the $165 compliance cost would be prohibitive for some. Right?

Should we think outside the [ballot] box on this one?

Free & fair elections benefit the whole People. Right?
Should the entire tax base entirely fund these expenses for the entire population?

 

[Shiftless2]

And if someone doesn't have a birth certificate how are they going to get a passport? Especially if they've changed their name.

 

[sear]

And if someone doesn't have a birth certificate how are they going to get a passport? Especially if they've changed their name.

In that case, should they vote at all?

 

[Shiftless2]

In that case, should they vote at all?

They have a right to vote so I guess we're at am impasse.

 

[sear]

"They have a right to vote " S2 #6

I deduce you apply a definition of "eligibility" which exceeds its accepted definition.
You know as well as I do unreasonable demands can be imposed on voters in an effort to influence the election outcome.

One way to remedy that is to absolutely totally eliminate all requirements at all. Shall we have that?
Voters bringing along their pets to election polling places, insisting that their cat, their dog wish to vote as well?

We have age requirements. Shall we simply take the voter's word for it?

We can reduce this to a binary:
- invite a second dawn of primitive society. By applying the practice applied centuries ago, we contribute to achieving the result achieved centuries ago?
- Take reasonable procedural precautions to verify voter eligibility.

I understand. We're groping for Goldilocks here.
Zero rules, or the virtual equivalent, zero enforcement of rule, a bad idea.
The other extreme, no improvement.
So the optimal obviously resides somewhere between those two extremes.

"... so I guess we're at am impasse." S2 #6

The rallying cry of countless historic struggles advocated by tenacious adherents to noble principle ...
oh wait.

"... so I guess we're at am impasse." S2 #6

That's surrender, forfeit.

Instead, the path to victory, to success, to justice is:
- establish objective rules for equitable public opinion polling.
- Apply those rules fairly.