this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
231 points (98.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
5072 readers
417 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Explain how this is voter disenfranchisement?
I think the logic is based on the SAVE Act: if it passes, you effectively need a passport to vote.
But it has not yet passed.
You need a passport to vote?
You seem to have misunderstood their comment.
I've added emphasis to make things clear.
Even though an executive order is not a law, the regime has been acting like it is.
Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections
Any in-person vote without a valid ID (passport is one of the few considered enough) will be challenged. Not to mention the challanges to mail in ballots.
States do control their elections, but plenty of regime friendly states will just let the regime control it. Allowing the regime to make challanges in key areas easier.
And crucially, elections are already close -- even more so because of the electoral college. So most likely, the regime has already secured wins in the midterms, because those have to happen until those people notice that they can't vote anymore.
36 states require identification to vote. A passport is ID. Maybe a very small percentage of passport holders don't have a second ID but for those that only have the one is being behind on child support a sufficient reason to take away someone's vote?
Gonna stop everyone right here and mention that ID requirements were not the norm until recently. It is, and always was, possible to prove citizenship without issuance of an ID (let alone a photo ID). Studies have shown that it does very little to reduce voter fraud and only disenfranchises vulnerable populations.
Secondly, elections are the purview of the states. Any requirements that give feds control of the voting process are unconstitutional. A federal passport is US property issued at the discretion of the government and can be revoked at any time (as shown in this article), and is therefore unconstitutional.
Of course not. Taking away the vote of a US citizen (with very, very specific exceptions) is unconstitutional. We only got here because of years of getting away with unconstitutional shit. It won't change while the criminals are in charge.
Well, gestures at fucking everything.