Donald Trump has said he will issue an executive order to mandate identification for all US elections, a move likely to be challenged in court as unconstitutional.

"Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. NO EXCEPTIONS! I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!!,” the US president said on Truth Social late on Saturday.

Trump also claimed he wants to ban all voting by mail except for those who are very ill or in military service.

The US constitution grants primary authority to regulate elections to the US states, while empowering Congress to enact election laws or regulations. It gives no explicit authority to the president to regulate voting.

top 73 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 94 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Can he just go back to being dead?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    He can fuck on off. That’s up to the States.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yea, how the fuck is he even gonna enforce that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago

    I like the way the headline implies that he openly admitted that the order would be unconstitutional.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    So sick of just one fucking asshole in this country able to torment millions of us.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Cool, and he also will release the unredacted Epstein files like he promised.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    The use of executive orders to rule by decree is itself unconstitutional.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Um, so this IS the party of "small government", yes?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    EOs arnt laws.. Congress still has to make them into laws.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    There's the legal tactic of: do now and ask for forgiveness never. It works really well when there are no legal consequences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • Yup, flood the courts and demand appeals whenever judges block things. The goal is to overwhelm the system in the short term. While judges and lawyers are busy setting court dates that are weeks away, the regime will carry on as if the EO is legal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I Will Be Doing An Executive Order

    President of the United States.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Trump is way too fucking lazy to press the shift key before every word. I just do not believe that he writes his own tweets. I'd like to see just one video of him visibly typing out a tweet that is then published. I'd bet that if you cross-referenced when his tweets are posted with his golf schedule, you'd find that at least some of them are written by somebody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    Hey Donny, that's great and all, but where are the Epstein files? Inquiring minds need to know!

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    He'll be dead before the next election.

    Bet your house on it.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I do but only by right of conquest. Or whatever it's called when your parents die and leave you the house they had their parents help them get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Bequest?

    Unless you stole their land and killed your parents.....😳

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I'm very ill.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    You don't have to have proof of identity to vote in the US?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    In states that do not require an ID, you still need to present a document with your name. It is then compared with the voter registration database. The argument against requiring an ID is that ID's aren't free in the US, which can cause a financial hurdle for many.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    And there's additional hurdles for more targeted populations, like access to the place that gives you the ID, and the capacity to prove your ID to that place with specific documents that may ormay not exist. It's on purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sounds like a solution would be some sort of national ID card provided for free?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Heck, personal ID is not free in my country, either (I paid 43€ for a renewal last week), but it is mandatory, so everyone has it. Americans could do it even cheaper if they wanted.

    With so low levels of identity proof in the US, don't complain about identity theft. Here, you simply can't open a bank account with just an SSN drawn from the darknet and a self-printed electricity bill. Having a proper ID has many uses, way beyond identifying for your right to vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Also there will be underwear inspections and all underwear must now be worn on the outside of pants.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Can we 100% confirmed that Donny actually made this statement and that it wasn’t a body double? And also RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I can't see California ever enforcing this

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    This was the plan for the "Real ID" all along

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    He does care fuck if it is "legal" or "constitutional". Those terms do no longer exist as criteria.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Fucking hell I hate to even say this, but this might be the first thing he has ever done that I might agree with. But hear me out before you crucify me.

    There isn't rampant voter fraud near to the level MAGA claims. They imply it's 50% fraudulent. It's really like 1% or less, and most of that gets caught anyway already.

    I do think it is important to validate that the person casting the vote is registered and is the correct person casting the vote. But I would balance that requirement with common sense and I'd make getting any/all valid IDs easy and free (fully tax funded). From DL to Real ID to Military or whatever else. All free. All simple to get. All accessible to do. And I'd also make all elections a national holiday and expand mail in and online voting and early voting. Give people as much margin to get their vote in as possible.

    Elections do need security, hell, I'm still not entirely convinced that Elon didn't do SOMETHING nefarious in this last one. He at very least was paying people which is illegal. But we need better encryptions and processes and forms of certifying that the ballots cast were indeed the correct intended vote and ways to go back and validate your own vote in a secure way. Make a portal where you can log in like your bank and see your vote history or something.

    While we're at it. Abolish the damn college. Just make it all RCV and be done with all this shit with gerrymandering and arguing over the "least worst' candidate every cycle.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Much less than 1%. Voter Fraud is so rare that it has no impact on elections. However the Republicans have been trying to pass a federal voter ID law (the SAVE act) which creates substantial barriers for married women who changed their last name from voting. The additional barriers will destroy democracy.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-voting-rights-groups-warn-the-save-act-may-make-it-harder-for-married-women-to-vote

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Republicans would never win if they did all that, and Democrats would immediately be seriously challenged by Progressive candidates, so they aren't interested either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They would never lose again if they did roll out a federal voter ID law:

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-voting-rights-groups-warn-the-save-act-may-make-it-harder-for-married-women-to-vote

    They could at will pass federal laws that disenfranchise anyone who votes against their agenda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Of course, if the legislation they passed only incorporated voter ID and not any of the other stuff the person I was replying to spoke of, including ranked choice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Thats the scam: they know most Americans support basic voter id requirements and dont read the news. So Americans would tacitly support a national voter ID requirement (which itself violates the constitution) without realizing that it would prevent many women from voting. Voter ID laws are a Trojan horse for rolling back democratic controls on fascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I was typing up a comment to say this but when I really started thinking about it it’s not feasible to use IDs. The whole reason it’s unconstitutional is it directly targets poor people and prevents them from voting. ID centers would have to be open 7 days a week. All other forms of IDs needed to obtain a voter ID would also have to be free, and those places would have to be open 7 days also.

    There’s just too much that would have to go into making it fair for every citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Soviet Anthem Intensifies

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Already have to do this in a lot of states. Have to show my drivers license and compare my signature in Alabama before I can vote.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Give no explicit authority to the executive branch, but that isn’t gonna matter to Trump nor the Supreme Court

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In normal democratic countries "VoterID" is either National ID card or Passport. In "new" democratic countries (like mine) we sign the voter list (not the ballot), signature is compared visualy with signature on the ID card or Passport. Also picture from the ID card is printed on voter list so visual comparioson is made. Since last elections we are checked with fingerprint reader, again compared with fingerprint deposited when ID card or Passport was issued. Never had any problems or delays during voting. I bet US invented all that technology. But despite so many controls, there are many ways to commit voter fraud, especially in areas where voters are poor.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    wait.. so you guys are worried about having to identify yourself to vote?

    meanwhile you are registered multiple times a day through license plate identification, CCTV cameras, facial recognition, and not to mention your google/Apple device usage and browser and other digital fingerprinting

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    I'm so fucking tired of this moron...

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I had no idea this was unconstitutional, because every Republican state I've lived in required ID to vote.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    To be clear: the president dictating it via executive order is unconstitutional, not the practice of voter id itself.
    The constitution pretty explicitly makes elections a state issue with some congressional action on top of them. The president doesn't factor into it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    When is this moron going to die?

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/theguardian_us@ibbit.at view that post
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    And if states refuse? He's already defunding democratically controlled states, he's already rejecting their electorial votes.

  • source