Last October, I attended a rally for Kamala Harris. The security measures were extreme—rallygoers had to register online, display government-issued IDs at two checkpoints, and undergo a screening by the Secret Service. But then, on stage, Harris and other Democrats campaigned against voter identification laws and proof of citizenship requirements, labeling them “disenfranchisement.” I thought this was painfully ironic. How could something required for political rally attendance be considered oppressive at the voting booth?
America should strive to make elections secure and trustworthy. It is fundamental to ensuring the integrity of our elections. When reasonable proposals like Voter ID laws or proof-of-citizenship requirements are introduced, they’re often met with controversy and accusations of suppression. When I voted in North Carolina’s primaries last year, all I was asked to do was state my name and home address and point to my last name on the poll worker’s sheet. If I had said my father’s name, or that of a friend, the volunteers would have handed me their ballot without hesitation. There were no other measures to verify my identity. This is a clear vulnerability.
In between the primaries and the general election, North Carolina passed a voter ID law. When I arrived at the polls later that fall, I had to show my driver’s license before being handed a ballot and casting my vote. This simple change, though small, greatly increased my confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. Although this might seem like a small personal example, thinking about voter fraud at the level of one vote is necessary. Because, think: even a single instance of voter fraud cancels out the vote of a legitimate citizen. A desire to protect every possible vote should not be controversial. Other developed democracies, like Canada, France, and Germany, already mandate voter ID. India, the world’s largest democracy, with 1.5 billion voters, requires identification at the polling station. This massive undertaking, with seven different phases lasting from April to June, consistently stands the test of integrity. If these nations don’t view such laws as suppressive, and larger less-developed nations carry out such massive elections, why should America settle for less?
Some argue voter ID disproportionately impacts elderly, low-income, or minority voters. Of course, obtaining an ID can involve inconvenience. Studies estimate that about 9% of U.S. citizens lack a government-issued photo ID, with disproportionate effects on minority and low-income voters. Yet many states, including North Carolina and Georgia, already address this by subsidizing IDs for low-income voters. Successful free ID programs like these can be implemented nationwide to ensure access while preserving integrity. A minor inconvenience is not disenfranchisement—it’s responsible citizenship. If we require identification to enter a political rally, board a plane, buy alcohol, or even pick up concert tickets, it’s not crazy to expect identification when participating in the most fundamental action of democracy.
Beyond voter ID at polling places, making sure voters are actually eligible citizens is just as important. Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a bill now awaiting a Senate vote. The SAVE Act requires proof of citizenship to register for federal elections, addressing documented cases of noncitizens voting.
Opponents have labeled the SAVE Act discriminatory, primarily arguing it would disenfranchise married women due to name changes. This narrative, championed by prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, misrepresents the bill entirely. Married women who’ve changed their names and are already registered to vote are unaffected. Those who have updated their citizenship documents following a name change face no barriers. The SAVE Act directs states to provide straightforward procedures to address any discrepancies resulting from name changes. Why oppose a bill that strengthens electoral integrity with minimal impact on registered voters and responsible citizens? Some dismiss the issue, claiming noncitizen voting is rare. In fact, a Heritage Foundation database documents over 1,600 proven instances of voter fraud, including cases involving noncitizens (again, that’s 1,600 legitimate votes watered down). In North Carolina alone, more than 40 noncitizens were indicted for illegal voting between 2015 and 2020. While these numbers are tiny compared to the tens of millions of ballots cast nationwide, even a single illegal vote cancels out the vote of a legitimate citizen. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) won her district by merely six votes in 2020, while key states like Arizona and Georgia had presidential margins of just thousands of votes in 2020. A small number of noncitizen votes could definitely sway outcomes. Supporters argue that ensuring that only citizens can vote strengthens integrity, but critics contend that adding extra registration checks could also discourage or disqualify already eligible voters, raising the valid debate of how to balance security with access.
Current federal law does not allow states to verify citizenship at registration. The SAVE Act would address this gap by giving states authority to confirm eligibility and ensure only citizens participate in federal elections. Supporters argue this is a safeguard, especially given the influx of millions of undocumented immigrants in the last decade. Critics caution that requiring in-person documentation or additional paperwork could create barriers for legitimate voters, particularly those who may lack easy access to passports or birth certificates. Still, in an era of razor-thin margins where even a handful of illegal votes could alter outcomes, the balance tips toward enacting the SAVE Act as a reasonable measure to protect electoral integrity.
The right to vote is sacred. Protecting it shouldn’t devolve into partisan bickering. Voter ID and citizenship verification are not radical or suppressive ideas. Mischaracterizing these proposals as discriminatory trivializes genuine voter suppression, which continues to be a real problem. Acknowledging these real barriers while implementing thoughtful safeguards can ensure elections are both secure and accessible. When politicians and activists equate minor inconveniences with disenfranchisement, they undermine real genuine threats to electoral fairness. Voting is both a right and responsibility.
With public support across party lines—84% of Americans favor voter ID, including a majority of Democrats—politicians should realize electoral integrity isn’t a partisan issue. The Senate must pass the SAVE Act, reinforcing our commitment to fair and trustworthy elections.
America deserves secure elections free from doubt and politicization, real or perceived. Implementing reforms like voter ID and citizenship verification achieves exactly that. Why should our elections be less secure than our rallies? If identification and citizenship verification are reasonable safeguards everywhere else in public American life, why not at the ballot box? Securing elections isn’t about suppression; it’s about responsibility. Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it deserves at least the same security as attending a political rally.
by Nilay Ghodasara
