this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
254 points (99.6% liked)

politics

28280 readers
1520 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Voting regulation is not a power expressed to Congress (except as related to ensuring no bias in race, age, and gender), so his unilateral action has no basis in law. But, when has a basis in law ever applied to him? Lawful grounds such as 'consent' has never applied to him before. Why would it now?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

because people who live in cities with public transportation are less likely to have drivers’ licenses.

He's not even talking about using driver license because anyone can get one of those. No, he's talking about proof of citizenship, which will disenfranchise wwwwaaaaayyyyy more people.

Do you know where your birth certificate is? No? Good luck.

Does your current name via marriage match what's on the certificate? No. Get fucked ma'am. We need more ~~future wage slaves~~ babies anyway.

Don't have a passport? Sorry, but you're disenfranchised!

Oh? You have everything squared away? Right this way Mr. Rich-man! You're just the person we want to vote since you'll probably vote for us.

[–] starik@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes, requiring a birth certificate is even more onerous. Again, it’s not clear that this will help Republicans (assuming it ever makes into law). Of course some rich people still vote Republican, but I’m willing to bet that a higher percentage of the population that knows where their birth certificate is votes for Democrats now. Same thing for people who floss regularly, remember their parents’ birthdays, or know how to read a scatter plot.

[–] itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think the issue is you assume it will be enforced universally. It won't. It will be dependent on the makeup of the district and the color of the individual voter. It will be up to individuals at polling stations (and any ICE present) whether 'exceptions' can be made for people that are 'obviously citizens but forgot their ID'. Or whether a married woman's name mismatch is an issue or not based on her skin/hair color and way of speaking. It's going to be selectively enforced, by design

Edit - see poll tests

[–] starik@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That would be clearly illegal. The courts have have to go along with it, in which case we have bigger problems

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago

This seems to matter less every week.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Right, but a birth certificate is just words on a paper. Republicans will say that is an insufficient link to the person holding it.

[–] starik@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

There aren’t enough people willing to go along with what would be required to bring this to fruition. Trump doesn’t get to decide who is allowed to vote.