Despite the knee-jerk objections Democratic politicians have to the concept of voter ID, the reform remains extremely popular among ordinary Americans. 

It’s easy to see why. Not only is identification required for a long list of mundane activities from cashing a check to boarding a plane, but nearly half of the states in the nation already require voters to provide some official form of photo identification at the polls with little controversy.   

In other words, it’s not just the fringe right-wing conspiracists afraid of voter fraud who think a picture ID might bolster America’s election security. As it turns out, even a majority of Democratic voters happen to agree, which is undoubtedly among the reasons a proposed constitutional amendment to enforce such requirements in Nevada will once again be on the ballot this year. 

However, the popularity of the issue also explains why Republicans are quick to label the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act as nothing more than a “voter ID” bill aimed at keeping noncitizens from illegally casting ballots. In marketing, words matter — so, it makes sense the GOP would describe its planned reform as something so benign. 

After all, the phrase “federal takeover of local elections” probably doesn’t poll quite as well with most Americans — even if that’s a far more accurate description of the act.  

Far from merely requiring voters to identify themselves with a government-issued ID, the bill requires proof of citizenship at the time of registration, a provision that will render mere driver’s licenses inadequate for many would-be voters. Birth certificates, marriage licenses and passports aren’t generally the sort of documentation most people think of when they hear the term “voter ID,” but those are precisely the documents that will be required of countless individuals to prove their eligibility when registering if the bill becomes law. 

The bill also imposes federal criminal penalties for election officials who fail to tick the right bureaucratic boxes — even if their failure to do so doesn’t result in any unqualified individuals actually registering to vote or casting any ballots. 

Making matters worse is that the slew of new requirements, penalties and administrative burdens included in the act would take effect immediately. As a result, states would have to scramble to come into compliance before the November elections or risk local election officials facing potential criminal charges on the federal level. 

Even for those who are deeply concerned about the extremely rare occurrence of ineligible voters casting ballots in U.S. elections, the complexity and federalized nature of the SAVE Act should be enough to cause a little pragmatic concern. 

More concerning should be the zeal with which Republicans are looking to “nationalize” our local elections while they still hold a fragile majority in Congress. 

Historically, Congress has taken a relatively light touch when it comes to regulating the mechanics of how our elections are run, and for good reason: Subjecting our democratic process to the partisan whims of national majorities is inherently dangerous for the stability of our republic. 

It wasn’t too long ago that Republicans at least pretended to understand this concept. As recently as 2021, the GOP was insistent that elections remain primarily run by the states, objecting vehemently to the Democratic attempt to “strengthen voting rights” after the commotion and chaos of the 2020 election. However, because they are now the ones with a temporary majority, Republicans suddenly have a renewed interest in letting the federal government  expand its control over the way local jurisdictions conduct elections. 

Principles, as it turns out, are easily sacrificed for populist partisan advantages in national politics. 

And that’s the precise reason such federal intrusion into how states hold elections should be worrisome, regardless of how one feels about the broader issue of strengthening voter integrity. The brilliance of state-run elections in America is that it protects against a centralized partisan takeover of our democratic process, allowing the best aspects of federalism to act as a bulwark against potentially ill-devised reforms. 

Should a state such as Texas, for example, decide to implement the concepts outlined in the SAVE Act, other states would be able to learn from its experimentation — seeing what works and what doesn’t without jeopardizing the integrity of their own election process at the same time. Like so many policy areas, allowing states the freedom to serve as “laboratories of democracy” protects the rest of the nation from unintended consequences, constitutional quandaries or policy proposals that are merely poorly written. 

The SAVE Act has a plethora of worrisome technical issues tucked in its pages, but the most concerning aspect of its advancement to the Senate is the way Republicans have proved themselves willing to subject our elections to the absurdist partisanship of federal politics. It’s representative of the shortsighted populism of our current political era, and it will ultimately be an open invitation for even more federal intrusion into state elections in years to come. 

And that’s an invitation Republicans will be sure to lament when they once again find themselves in the minority. Just imagine, for a moment, the right-wing outrage that will arise when an eventual Democratic congressional majority decides to push its preferred election reforms — such as universal mail-in balloting — upon the nation in a similar fashion. 

Yes, voter ID might be a popular and commonsense policy concept. However, it’s one that should remain up to the states to adopt and implement as they see fit, not forced upon all 50 by partisan opportunists who want to micromanage our democratic process from the top down.

 Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas and founder of Schaus Creative LLC, an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichaelor on Substack @creativediscourse.