Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

To be clear: non-citizens should not be voting in federal elections. I absolutly agree with that.

There is practically no reliable evidence establisthing that non-citizents are voting in federal elections in even the triple digits out of tens of millions of votes cast.

Voter ID is a solution searching for a problem.

I appreciate you voicing that.  

How should it be done?

I make a distinction between registering to vote, and voting.  The fraud that could happen with the one is different from the fraud that could happen with the other.  Voter fraud includes things like ballot harvesting, which is unrelated to voter ID or voter registration.

*The Georgia law is intended to reign in ballot harvesting by requiring ID on absentee ballots, in effect, though that requirement just mandates another step in the fraudulent scheme.

I don't have an issue with voter ID so long as reasonable steps are made to enable folks to get the required ID who otherwise would find it difficult, e.g., an elderly lady living in a home who rarely goes anywhere.

The registration item could be problematic for some women who changed their names on marriage.  And a fake birth certificate is pretty easy to print out.  I don't know of any studies about how many registered to vote are not citizens.  I know it happens, usually because of a misunderstanding.

True?

Even if everything you say here is correct, it is a, at best negligible-cost solution.  There is no valid reason to resist it unless you have something to hide and, see my last two posts, your side has a LOT to hide so they resist it. 

There is no credible evidence of the thing that people claim as the justification for voter ID laws, i.e., voter fraud, including non-citizens voting in any significant numbers. There is lots of credible evidence that voter ID laws deprive citizens of their opportunity to vote. This issue seems so very simple.
But, I acknowledge, as I have from the start, that it is a losing argument because most people think the requirements don't impact real people. The facts are unimportant here; the rhetoric, and the simple argument--just show your drivers license--win the day politically. Congratulations. You win. American citizens get denied the right to vote to prevent an astonishingly small amount of actual fraud. Victory is yours.

True?

obviously true at most universities

Heritage Foundation on 2020, number of non-citizen voters:

If I'm viewing this correctly, there were 16 instances of non-citizens being charged with voter registration or voting between 2020 and 2024, and if my quick review is correct, only four of them actually voted.
https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search
According to the 5th Circuit in that 2016 decision I cited earlier, the Texas voter ID law (that was overturned) would have precluded as many as 600,000 American citizens from voting in TX. Is that number high? Probably. But let's say it was 1% of that: 6,000 American citizens denied the right to vote. That's just in Texas, but let's make that nationwide as a result of many states adopting these laws. That to stop those four people from voting--the 12 more who illegally registered (and were caught without a voter ID law)--don't even figure in. But what if they did? 16 people across the United States prevented from illegally voting. 6,000 citizens stripped of their legal right to vote. Does that make for a better democracy? I don't think so. Apparently many of you do. Cool. As noted, your side has won this argument.
Fearless: why die on the hill of protecting citizens' right to vote? That seems self explanatory.
But I'll indulge y'all a little more. On the cynical side (which is at least partly true) why does the Democratic party die on this hill? Because it thinks most of these people will vote for Democrats--but also, probably more importantly, because it wants to hold the mantle of protecting minority voter rights, which Democrats believe will attract more votes from minority voters, even those not directly impacted.
Why do civil rights organizations die on this hill? Because their stated mission is to protect individual civil rights, and the right to vote is the core right in a democracy.
Believe it or not, some people, regardless of party, believe in protecting individuals' voting rights, regardless of how that may or may not help a particular party. I like to think that describes me.

the original statement that the federal death penalty had been abolished is still factually untrue.

Semantics.


It was effectively abolished by the pro-crime party, they have blood on their hands.