Should a person be asked for personal identification before they are permitted to cast their vote in a free society? Why are we even asking this question?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #286 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
It seems to me that certain political issues, given their nature and importance, should attract broad bipartisan support – like veterans’ benefits or maybe national park maintenance—just like voter ID, another issue that I’d think would be a no brainer, common sense, straight up issue. But no, all these issues are highly politicized, voter ID so much so it is now on the ballot.
“When voters in a dozen states open their ballots this fall, they will find questions not just about candidates but about the rules of voting itself. Six states will decide whether to require voters to show identification. Six will decide whether to write into their constitutions that only U.S. citizens may vote in any election. Arizona will decide both at once. Ballotpedia counts 2026 as the year with the most voter identification measures ever to appear on statewide ballots in a single election.
A federal version of the same debate has stalled. The SAVE America Act, President Donald Trump’s top legislative priority, would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and photo identification to cast a ballot. Versions of the bill have passed the House of Representatives, but there has never been enough agreement between the House and Senate to send it to the president’s desk, in part because some Republican senators oppose it.”
The debate over requiring voters to have legal identification (Voter ID) centers on two democratic principles: protecting the integrity of elections and protecting every eligible citizen’s right to vote.
Ultimately, the debate raises the important question, should citizens be required to establish their identity before exercising the privilege and responsibility of voting, just as they must establish their identity in many other important civic and financial transactions?
Supporters emphasize that voting is too important not to have reasonable safeguards. Opponents emphasize that the government must not place unnecessary obstacles between eligible citizens and the ballot box.
Much of the policy debate concerns how to establish reliable identification requirements without unnecessarily excluding eligible voters.
One other clarification: “Voter ID is not the same as voter registration.
Voter registration is the process of getting enrolled on your state’s official list of eligible voters. All states (except for North Dakota) require individuals to register to vote. Every state also requires voters to attest to their citizenship, identity, and residency when registering. States then use multiple checks to help ensure only eligible US citizens vote, and people face severe penalties if they misrepresent their citizenship status. Voter ID requirements, on the other hand, come into play after voter registration, when a registered voter is trying to cast a ballot. Despite already verifying eligibility during voter registration, voters in the 38 states with voter ID laws must take additional steps to confirm their identity again before their ballot is counted.”
Consider some arguments in favor of requiring voter identification:
- Election integrity and preventing fraud: requiring identification helps ensure that the person casting a ballot is the person registered to vote; reinforces the principle that only legally eligible voters should participate in elections.
2. Protecting the value of legitimate votes: every legitimate vote should count equally; an election system should have reasonable safeguards to prevent fraudulent votes from diluting legitimate votes.
3. Public confidence in elections: citizens are more likely to have confidence in elections when they believe reasonable identity-verification procedures are in place.
4. Consistency with other aspects of American life: Americans routinely provide identification to conduct important transactions, including banking, purchasing certain products, obtaining government services, and boarding commercial aircraft; supporters argue that identifying oneself when exercising the responsibility of voting is a reasonable expectation; and many other democratic countries require identification to vote.
5. Broad public support: polling has repeatedly found substantial public support for voter identification requirements, including among substantial numbers of Democratic voters. In fact, “Voter ID polls as one of the most popular election policies in the country. A Pew Research Center survey in August 2025 found that 83% of U.S. adults favor requiring government-issued photo ID to vote, up from 76% in 2018.”
Now, some arguments against requiring voter identification:
1. In-person voter fraud is uncommon.
2. Voter ID requirements can create obstacles for eligible citizens who may have difficulty obtaining government-issued identification, including, low-income individuals; elderly people who no longer drive; people with disabilities or limited mobility; people who lack birth certificates or other documents necessary to obtain identification.
3. Disproportionate effects on certain populations: critics argue that minorities, elderly citizens, students, and lower-income individuals are less likely, on average, to possess certain forms of government-issued identification.
Now let’s look at this issue differently with another distinction: Establishing that someone is who they claim to be is not the same as establishing that someone is a U.S. citizen. Voter identification and proof of citizenship are two separate policy questions, even though they are sometimes discussed together.
The debate over whether non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in American elections involves questions of citizenship, democratic representation, immigration, constitutional authority, and the meaning of American self-government.
But remember, this debate is primarily about whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote in local elections. Voting in federal elections is already restricted to U.S. citizens by federal law. Noncitizens cannot legally vote in elections for: President and vice president; U.S. Senate; and U.S. House of Representatives. No state currently permits noncitizens to vote in statewide elections.
As of October 2026, certain municipalities in California, Maryland, and Vermont, along with Washington, D.C., permit some noncitizens to vote in specified local elections.
Now, here are a couple of key arguments in favor of allowing noncitizens to vote:
- Noncitizens are residents and stakeholders in the community: legal permanent residents and other legally authorized immigrants pay taxes, own homes, operate businesses, and raise families in American communities.
2. Voting encourages civic participation and assimilation: supporters argue that participation can help integrate immigrants into American society rather than isolate them.
And arguments against allowing noncitizens to vote:
1. Voting is a privilege and responsibility of citizenship: American citizenship represents a legal and political relationship between an individual and the United States; voting is one of the defining privileges of that relationship.
2. Citizenship should mean something: the United States has a legal process for becoming a citizen, including naturalization; allowing noncitizens to vote diminishes the significance of completing that process.
3. Voting determines the direction of government: those who have not accepted the full legal responsibilities of American citizenship should not participate in choosing the officials who exercise governmental authority.
4. Potential conflicts of national allegiance: citizenship provides an important measure of shared national identity and commitment to the American constitutional system.
To obtain power, the progressive left wants to open borders, alter democratic processes and institutions, and hand voting rights to anyone and everyone, which is to say, they want to abolish the idea of citizenship. This is what Victor Davis Hanson called the “dying citizen.” But if we discard citizenship, we are no longer a government of, by, and for the people. We become what The Party in George Orwell’s book, 1984, labeled Proles (short for proletarians), subjects of the state.
So, should ID be required to vote in US elections and should noncitizens be allowed to vote? In my book this is a no brainer.
Voter ID is essential to election integrity, the engine of democracy. ID is available to all citizens and ID is required repeatedly in virtually all activities of our lives, so why not voting? And I’d authorize only citizens to vote.
Victor Davis Hanson noted, “America (is), in fact, demonstrably ‘exceptional’ by any metric.” He’s correct, but each generation must work to preserve this blessing and pass the baton. One critical way we can do this is to protect the vote and then to vote.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.