What Is Best for the Common Good?

Evidence is noted in [ ]

I. Recap

Q1 | MEANING

This claim proposes a two-factor law of election administration: Before casting a ballot, every voter must (1) present a government-issued photo ID and (2) provide a signature that officials verify against the voter’s registration record. It covers the moment of voting - in person and by mail - and it is stricter than any current state law.

Q2 | EVIDENCE

Our registry holds 62 facts: 15 affirming, 18 dissenting, and 29 neutral. Every fact links to its end source so you can check it yourself. For each fact we verified two things: (1) Its lane, and that the source actually states what we summarize. (2) How much weight each fact deserves is the reader’s judgment - and our conclusions are in Q3 and Q4.

Q3 | IMPACT

The six sub-claim results, in one line each:

SC-1 Fraud happens - rare, but it can decide a close race.

SC-2 Safeguards are uneven state to state, and technology is making them weaker.

SC-3 The fix’s measured effect is modest; signature checks on mail ballots work best.

SC-4 The burden on honest voters is real, lands on specific groups, and can mostly be designed away.

SC-5 Public support is high and repeated; costs run in the millions per state.

SC-6 Fair versions already exist; only states or Congress can enact it.

UNKNOWNS

Answered by research since our first draft:

• What these programs cost states to run - largely resolved by other states’ records.[N-28, N-29] Modern cost data is still thin - the records we have put costs in the single-digit to low-double-digit millions per state.

• Whether passing the law raises public trust - research finds it has not, by itself.[D-18] Our answer: Build measurement into the law (see Section 10 of the draft law).

Still open:

• No American election has ever tested the two checks together - photo ID plus signature.

• Real counts of who has ID - every number we have is a survey estimate or one state’s court count.

• How accurate signature checking is at the polls - today’s data covers mail ballots only.

• Whether these requirements scare off would-be cheaters before they try - the big study measured caught fraud, not prevented fraud.

II. Solution

OBJECTIVE: What’s best for the common good?

The Supreme Court long ago called the vote ‘preservative of all rights’ - the one right that protects every other. We agree, and we add what the Court’s cases assume: Voting is not only the most important right of American citizens; it is also our most important responsibility.

Protecting the right and honoring the responsibility are the same work. Every safeguard in this claim exists for both reasons at once: So every eligible citizen can vote, and no ineligible vote cancels one. (Evidence N-30 | SC-5, and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/)

Americans need to be confident our elections are fair, the vote count is accurate, and only citizens with the right to vote can participate.

Requiring photo ID and a signature match when voting is reasonable because it is consistent with other activities in our society, such as purchasing liquor and boarding a commercial flight.

Some will note that voting is a right, while those activities are not. True - the right belongs to every eligible citizen. That is why identity must be confirmed: To make sure it is the citizen, and not an impostor, who exercises it.

If ID is required for less important activities, then full confirmation of identity at the time of voting - our most important civic act - is more than validated.

The facts support that the financial and time burden for virtually all Americans is low, and there are cost-effective ways to help those with a true need for assistance to meet this requirement.

Our verdict: The facts support this claim. It should become law - with the safeguards below built into it.

WHAT THE LAW MUST INCLUDE

The evidence dictates how this law must be written. Every requirement below comes from the record, and each points to the section of the draft law that delivers it:

• A free photo ID for anyone who needs one - courts upheld the laws that included it and struck down the one that charged a fee.[A-10, D-14, A-11] (Section 6, 9)

• No eligible voter turned away - a provisional ballot and a fix-it window for anyone who forgets or lacks ID.[N-7, N-8, N-6] (Section 5)

• Help those with true needs with the hidden costs - the documents, travel, and time that make a “free” ID cost $75 to $175.[D-17, D-14] (Section 6)

• Accept tribal IDs as issued - one design mistake shut out an entire community.[D-13] (Section 6)

• Over-communicate to voters - North Carolina proved a law can keep scaring voters away even after it is gone, if nobody tells them.[D-9] (Section 7)

• Signature safeguards - allow up to three active reference signatures on file, AI - and if needed - human review before any rejection, and prompt notice with a chance to fix it, because signatures change with age and illness.[N-25, N-6, D-16] (Section 8)

• Funding that never touches the voter - free IDs paid for by a modest driver’s-license fee increase, with budgets adjusted for inflation.[N-28, N-29, D-14] (Section 9)

• Proof it works - built-in public reporting and confidence measurement, because research shows passing the law does not raise trust by itself.[D-18] (Section 10)

• Enacted the only legal way - by state legislatures for their states’ elections, and by Congress for federal elections - ideally in harmony for the common good. Never by executive order.[N-10, N-19, N-24] (Section 11)

III. The Draft Law

THE VOTER VERIFICATION ACT

Section 1 - Name. This law may be called the Voter Verification Act.

Section 2 - Why This Law Exists. The enacting body finds that:

• Confirmed voter fraud is rare, but in a close election even a small amount can change the result, and at least one congressional election has been overturned for ballot fraud.

• The rules for verifying voters differ in every state, and technology is making identity fraud cheaper and easier every year.

• Large majorities of Americans, across both parties, support requiring photo ID to vote.

• Courts have upheld photo ID laws when the ID is free and voters can fix mistakes - and struck them down when they cost money.

• The burden of this law falls hardest on specific groups of honest voters, so the protections in this law are not optional extras - they are the reason it is fair.

Section 3 - Definitions. In this law:

• “Photo ID” means a current identification card issued by a federal, state, or tribal government that shows the voter’s photograph. Examples include driver’s licenses, passports, and IDs issued by federally recognized tribes, accepted as issued - including those showing a post office box where homes have no street address.

• “Signature verification” means comparing the voter’s signature to the signatures on file in the voter’s registration record.

• “Cure period” means the ten days following election day; the voter is given this grace period to resolve their ID or signature problem with their local election officials.

Section 4 - What Voters Do at the Polls. To receive a regular ballot, a voter:

• Presents a current government-issued photo ID; and

• Signs the poll record; and

• Technology confirms the photo ID and signature; if either is rejected, a trained election official reviews to make the final decision.

Section 5 - No Eligible Voter Turned Away. A voter who cannot meet Section 4 votes a provisional ballot. The ballot counts if the voter presents ID and confirms their signature within the cure period, in person at a government voter-registration office or a state mobile unit staffed by government employees. Election officials must tell the voter, before leaving the polling place, exactly how and where to cure.

Section 6 - Free ID for Anyone Who Needs One. The state shall provide the following free services to residents who meet their financial standard of need:

• Documents to verify a resident’s citizenship, such as birth certificates;

• Reasonable number of mobile ID units , staffed by government employees, serving communities far from voter registration offices to meet with citizens closer to their homes; and

• Accept current IDs issued by federally recognized tribes.

Section 7 - Telling the Voters. Before the first election under this law, the state shall run a statewide education program and send direct, individual notice to every registered voter who has no ID on file. If any part of this law is later changed or suspended, the state shall notify those same voters again.

Section 8 - Signature Rules. Signature verification under this law requires:

• Up to three active reference signatures on file for each voter, verified at a state-designated election registrar location;

• Multiple signatures may be provided by a voter whose signatures have changed from age, disability, or illness - in advance of an election - at a state-designated election registrar location, and maintained on their record thereafter;

• Review of signature and photo ID by election software that may include AI, and if rejected, then by a trained election official - no rejection by technology alone; and

• Prompt notice and a cure opportunity for every rejection at the time of rejection - up to ten days past an election day.

Section 9 - Who Pays. No voter shall ever be charged for a government-issued photo ID. No voter who meets a state’s qualification of financial need shall pay for the documents this law requires to obtain a government-issued photo ID. Free IDs and the programs in Sections 6 and 7 are funded by a modest increase in the standard driver’s-license fee, with appropriations adjusted for inflation each year.

Section 10 - Proof It Works. Election results are already public record. After every general election, the state shall also publish: The number of provisional ballots, cure rates, and signature rejections by county; and, within 90 days of the election, the results of an independent survey of public confidence in elections. The people deserve to see whether this law delivers.

Section 11 - Who Implements, and When. The chief election official and the motor-vehicle agency implement this law together. It takes effect at the first regularly scheduled general election held at least one year after enactment.

Section 12 - Laws This One Replaces. The enacting body shall list the laws and bureaucratic rules that become unnecessary when this law passes, and repeal them.

Section 13 - If a Court Strikes Part. If any part of this law is held invalid, the rest remains in effect.

IV. Implementation

Simple Liberty Foundation is an educational organization. We research, publish, and teach. We do not lobby or endorse candidates. This research is a first step in public education on this claim. The next steps are:

• Engage with individuals - Simple Liberty Members and others - in civil dialog on the facts of this Claim, to sharpen the key details.

• Study and engage with organizations that came before us with similar proposals to further consider their research and results.

• Publish, as education for the people and their representatives:

• The model law above, refined by what we learn;

• A constitutional analysis - how federal and state responsibilities align best for the common good;

• What the law specifically requires, who implements it, and on what schedule; and

• A list of laws that become unnecessary - and can be repealed - if it passes.

Whether to act on this education belongs where it always has: With the people and those they elect. Therefore, once this process is complete, the people must drive change with their elected representatives.

V. Status

In public discussion. (July 2026)

VI. Solution Dependencies

This claim checks a voter’s identity at the moment of voting. Other claims must update our laws for full election integrity to be achieved. Three closely relate to this claim:

• Accurate voter rolls must be maintained. About one in eight voter registrations is wrong. Often it is simply outdated or a duplicate,[A-8] but it can also be an ineligible voter. And the system of confirming citizenship and voting rights at state DMVs and other registrars is flawed - it can be subject to bribes and other corruption, resulting in registering aliens as American citizens. The process of registering citizens and voters must be improved to maintain public safety and trust in our election process. This claim will be researched by our team and added to the topic of Election Integrity.

• All voters should be required to re-register to vote. New Jersey showed why: A software error put 6,600 noncitizens on the voter rolls, about 400 of them voted, and the error stayed hidden for up to three years.[N-26] Re-registering with a current ID clears out old errors and fraud in one step and renews the integrity of our voter data. This claim will be researched by our team and added to the topic of Election Integrity.

• At all times, citizens must have a real, current, government-issued photo ID. Millions of adults may lack one, based on survey estimates.[D-3] Meanwhile, fake IDs have become cheap[A-13] and AI is making identity fraud easier.[A-14] This is primarily a national security and citizenship issue - and is not driven to increase government’s ability for citizen surveillance. This claim will be researched by our team and added to the topic of Citizenship.

How they combine for the common good:

• The process of confirming citizenship and voter registration is flawed. As digital and AI fraud grows, it must be strengthened while reasonably achieving a balance of accuracy, efficiency, and simplicity.

• Re-registering with a current ID clears out the fraud and renews integrity to our voter data.

• Maintaining a current ID is logical, reasonable, and important for public safety. It is also consistent with laws to show current ID when purchasing liquor, flying on commercial airlines, and other activities.

These pending claims address real needs and have the potential to significantly simplify and increase trust in our election process. We will give each its own full review.

Meaning ┃ Evidence ┃ Impact ┃Solution

Who And What Does This Claim Impact?

Evidence is noted in [ ]

I. Introduction

Q1 | Meaning explained what this claim means. Q2 | Evidence listed the facts. Below we explore what happens if the claim becomes law - who and what are affected, and how much. Our proposed solution is provided in Q4 | Solution.

We run every claim through four tests to consider its impact:

• Who and What are affected?

• How Big is it, based on the evidence?

• Options: What can be done to limit the negatives and increase the positives?

• Projections: What happens over time?

NOTE: Evidence is referenced in [] - e.g., Evidence A-8 is listed as [A-8] and can be found on the Evidence page.

We trust evidence in this order:

• Laws and court records

• Official records and audits

• Peer-reviewed studies

• Surveys – estimates, not counts (see “Is That a Fact?”)

• Claims from advocacy groups

II. Solution Dependencies: What This Claim Needs to Work

This claim checks a voter’s identity at the moment of voting. There are other claims to update our laws for full election integrity to be achieved. Three closely relate to this claim of requiring government-issued photo ID and signature verification when voting:

• Accurate voter rolls must be maintained. About one in eight voter registrations is wrong. Often it is simply outdated or a duplicate [A-8], but it can also be an ineligible voter. And the system of confirming citizenship and voting rights at state DMV or other registrars is flawed - it can be subject to bribes and other corruption, resulting in registering aliens as American citizens. The process of registering citizens and voters must be improved to maintain public safety and trust in our election process. This claim will be researched by our team and added to the topic of Election Integrity.

• All voters should be required to re-register to vote. There is clear evidence that the use of fake IDs and AI to commit fraud is increasing, and there is voting by non-citizens. To restore faith in our election process - that only qualified citizens are voting - all voters should be required to re-register. This claim will be researched by our team and added to the topic of Election Integrity.

• At all times, citizens must have a real, current, government-issued photo ID. Millions of adults may lack one, based on survey estimates.[D-3] Meanwhile, fake IDs have become cheap[A-13] and AI is making identity fraud easier.[A-14]. This is primarily a national security and citizenship issue - and is not driven to increase government’s ability for citizen surveillance. This claim will be researched by our team and added to the topic of Citizenship.

How they combine for the common good:

• The process of confirming citizenship and voter registration is flawed. As digital and AI fraud grows, it must be strengthened while reasonably achieving a balance of accuracy, efficiency, and simplicity.

• Re-registering with a current ID clears out the fraud and renews integrity to our voter data.

• Maintaining a current ID is logical, reasonable, and important for public safety. It is also consistent with laws to show current ID when purchasing liquor, flying on commercial airlines, getting a driver’s license, and other activities.

These pending claims address real needs and have the potential to significantly simplify and increase trust in our election process. We will give each its own full review.

III. Testing Each Sub-Claim

SC-1 | Preventable fraud occurs, is likely undercounted, and could affect the outcome of a close election.

Fraud is real:

• More than 1,400 cases ended in convictions or other official findings.[A-1]

• One congressional election was thrown out over an absentee-ballot scheme.[A-3]

• A man forged his dead wife’s signature on a mail-ballot request – the signature check caught him.[A-4]

• A voter allowed to vote without ID turned out to be fraudulently registered.[A-5]

• 1982 Chicago: An estimated 100,000 fraudulent ballots; 63 people convicted.[A-7]

But it is rare:

• The same database holds only about 10 cases of someone pretending to be another voter at the polls - out of billions of votes.[D-1]

• It holds 41 noncitizen voting cases over about 50 years.[D-2]

• Georgia’s audit: 20 noncitizen registrations, 9 votes, out of 8.2 million voters.[N-20] Utah: 1 and 0, out of 2 million.[N-21] Ohio: 521 flagged, 1 charged.[N-23]

What we found. Fraud is real - it has even flipped an election.[A-3] Some surely goes uncaught; the database’s own authors say they only count what was caught.[A-2] But when states searched hard, they found very little.[N-20, N-21, N-23]

Conclusion: Election fraud is rare, but in a close election, even a little can decide it. The Supreme Court said the same.[A-6]

SC-2 | Current safeguards are insufficient, and digital technologies including AI are making them more so.

The rules are uneven:

• 36 states ask for some ID; 14 ask for none.[N-1]

• 32 states check mail-ballot signatures; 10 plus DC only check that the envelope was signed.[N-2, N-3]

• No-ID states rely on a signature and the voter stating their name and address.[N-4] Federal law covers only certain first-time voters.[N-9]

• Registration runs on the honor system – you swear you are a citizen, and that is it.[A-9] The rolls have many errors.[A-8]

And the safeguards are getting weaker:

• $15 fake IDs fooled a company’s automated ID check.[A-13]

• The government warns that AI-made fake documents are fooling banks.[A-14]

What we found. Two problems: (1) The safeguards are uneven, and they are getting weaker as technology improves; and (2) Whatever the fraud rate is today, cheating is getting easier and cheaper.

SC-3 | Requiring photo ID and signature verification will reduce ineligible voting.

What supports it:

• Signature checking caught a forged mail ballot before it counted – the clearest proof that verification works.[A-4]

• A bipartisan commission led by Jimmy Carter and James Baker recommended photo ID paired with free IDs.[A-11]

• The systems needed to check voters already exist and run every election.[N-2, N-5, N-25]

The hard part:

• The biggest national study found strict ID laws had no measurable effect on turnout - and no measurable effect on fraud either.[A-15]

What we found. The measured proof that this law would reduce illegal voting may be modest, but no state currently requires both government-issued photo ID and signature verification - so no data exists. Also, we did not investigate the depth and reliability of signature verification systems. These systems may or may not need improvement.

The strongest proven tool is the signature check on mail ballots.[A-4, N-2] This sub-claim leans mostly on SC-1 (rare fraud can flip close races) and SC-2 (cheating is getting easier) - on prevention and public trust - more than on measured results. Our Q4 | Solution must weigh that.

SC-4 | Eligible voters would not be wrongly blocked.

Who could be blocked:

• A survey estimates over 49 million adults lack a current, unexpired license with their current name and address[D-3] (survey estimate, n=2,386, weighted).

• A court counted 608,470 registered Texas voters – 4.5% – without qualifying ID under one strict law.[D-6]

• Those without ID are more often elderly, low-income, minority, or student voters.[D-4, D-5, D-10–D-12]

• North Dakota’s street-address rule shut out tribal IDs that list PO boxes.[D-13]

• Some studies found turnout dropped 2–3 points after strict laws.[D-7, D-8] In North Carolina, voters without ID kept staying home even after the law was struck down – because nobody told them it was gone.[D-9]

• Signatures change with age and illnesses like Parkinson’s – risking rejected ballots.[D-16]

On the other side:

• The biggest national study found no turnout drop at all, for any racial group.[A-15]

• The Supreme Court ruled Indiana’s law was not a heavy burden for most voters.[A-10]

Options:

• Free IDs are now standard – courts push states to provide them. Indiana’s law survived because IDs were free;[A-10] Georgia’s survived only after a court called its fee an illegal poll tax.[D-14]

• The Carter-Baker plan added outreach and mobile issuance for those who need help.[A-11]

• Fix-it (“cure”) windows are written into the law,[N-7, N-8] and officials compare several signatures on file.[N-6, N-25]

• Design rule learned the hard way: Accept tribal IDs as issued.[D-13]

• If Companion Claim #3 passes, nearly everyone will already have an ID (Section II).

Projections - what is left:

• The hidden costs a free ID does not fix - getting a birth certificate, travel, and time off work. That is what the poll-tax ruling was really about.[D-14]

• Voters whose signatures have changed are only as protected as the fix-it process is good.[D-16, N-6]

• Confusion. North Carolina proved a law can keep scaring voters away even after it is gone, if nobody tells them.[D-9] Clear communication changes the outcome.

What we found. There is a burden, but it is limited and can be overcome by targeted support for those with real need. For example, states can provide free IDs, fix-it steps, fair rules, and our Companion Claims help level the playing field.

It is illogical and unrealistic to claim 100% of eligible citizens will ever register to vote and vote in every election. Our Q4 | Solution focuses on what’s best for the common good.

SC-5 | The cost and effort are justified.

Public support is strong and repeated:

• 84% support photo ID (Gallup).[N-11] 83% (Pew).[N-12] 77% called it “reasonable” - the actual word in Rasmussen’s question.[N-13]

• Three polling companies, different methods, same answer, within months.

• Voters in 15 states approved citizenship-voting measures, averaging 73% yes.[N-17]

The cost side:

• One court struck down an ID fee as an illegal poll tax - so the ID must be free.[D-14] Only a small share of voters - roughly five percent or less - would ever need one provided.[D-3, D-6]

• State records put implementation costs in the single-digit to low-double-digit millions per state.[N-28, N-29] Most figures are from 2005-2011, so modern cost data is thin (see Section VII).

• Studies find no consistent link between strict ID laws and higher voter confidence.[D-18]

What we found. The public strongly believes this is reasonable. Other states’ records now give us a price range, though the figures are dated.[N-28, N-29] “Worth it” is a Q4 | Solution decision. Q3 | Impact’s finding: The support is solid; the cost is bounded but dated.

SC-6 | The requirement can be implemented fairly and uniformly.

It can be done fairly:

• The Constitution gives this job to state legislatures and Congress.[N-10]

• Indiana is the tested model: Photo ID, free IDs, a 10-day fix-it window - upheld by the Supreme Court.[N-7, N-8]

• Even the leading opposition group supports “commonsense” ID rules, pointing to Rhode Island and Michigan as fair ones.[A-12]

The limits:

• 36 different state systems today.[N-1]

• Courts blocked the president’s attempt to change election rules alone,[N-19] and a promised national voter-ID order has been announced twice and never issued.[N-24]

• A state court struck down New York City’s local overreach in the other direction.[N-16]

• North Dakota shows how one small design choice can unfairly shut people out.[D-13]

What we found. Fair versions already exist - Indiana, Rhode Island, and Michigan prove it.[N-7, N-8, A-12] Making it the same everywhere is the hard part, and there are only two legal paths: State by state, or Congress. Not the president.[N-10, N-19, N-24]

Fairness requires an efficient system with boundaries - the system supports those who truly need it, not the irresponsible. Systems have succeeded when free IDs, fix-it steps, and reasonable inclusive rules were built in, and failed where they were not.[D-13, D-14]

IV. Common Scenarios

• You forgot your ID. You vote a provisional ballot. It counts if you show your ID within the fix-it window - 10 days in Indiana.[N-7, N-8]

• The cost to the voter: A second trip. Longer windows and remote fixes make it easier.[N-6]. Who’s fault? The voter.

• The cost to the state: Minimal.

• You do not have an ID at all. The ID itself can be free - courts push states to do that.[A-10, D-14, A-11] What is left: The citizen’s paperwork, the ride, and the time. If Companion Claim #3 passes, this problem goes away (Section II).

• The cost to the voter: Completed in advance of registering to vote or as part of it. Support systems can eliminate the cost for the truly destitute.

• The cost to the state: None - standard procedure.

• You do not have a ride. Two different problems. (a) A ride to get and keep an ID - that is this law’s burden, and mobile ID vans can fix much of it.[A-11] (b) A ride to the polls on Election Day - that exists with or without this law, so it does not count against this claim.

• The cost to the voter: States can eliminate this cost for those with a true need.

• The cost to the state: Limited, but must have boundaries to avoid exploitation.

• You vote by mail. How ID and signatures get checked for absentee ballots is handled in a separate claim: Fix the absentee voting process to deter and detect fraud (Claim # pending). This claim covers in-person voting. Today’s mail baseline: 32 states check signatures; 10 plus DC only check the envelope.[N-2, N-3] Mail rejection-rate disparities[D-15] move to that claim.

V. Who Feels This Law - Group by Group

VI. Leftover Evidence

Every evidence entry is accounted for. The ones not used above have new homes:

• D-15 (mail-ballot rejection disparities) - moves to an absentee companion claim.

• N-5 (states that require ID copies with mail ballots) – becomes Q4 | Solution design material.

• N-14, N-15, N-16 (citizenship-voting rules) - stay as boundary markers in Q1 | Meaning Section XIII and seed Citizenship claims.

VII. What We Still Do Not Know

Answered by research since our first draft:

• What these programs cost states to run - largely resolved by other states’ records.[N-28, N-29] Modern cost data is still thin.

• Whether passing the law raises public trust - research finds it has not, by itself.[D-18] Our Q4 | Solution includes measuring it.

Still open:

• No American election has ever tested the two checks together - photo ID plus signature.

• Real counts of who has ID - every number we have is a survey estimate or one state’s court count.

• How accurate signature checking is at the polls - today’s data on signature accuracy covers mail ballots only.

• Whether these requirements scare off would-be cheaters before they try - the big study measured caught fraud, not prevented fraud.

VIII. Impact Summary

Voter fraud is real, and courts have proven it. Confirmed fraud is also rare - the actual total is unknown. The danger is that in a close election, even a small amount can change the result.

Meanwhile, the rules and processes for managing elections are different in every state, and technology is making it cheaper and easier to fake an identity every year.

The fix this claim proposes - photo ID plus signature verification - is one that large majorities of Americans in both parties call reasonable. No state requires both checks today, so its full effect has never been measured.

The burden on honest voters is real but limited, and can be managed: IDs can be free, mistakes can be fixed, and fair rules can be written - several states have already proven it.

What remains falls on a small share of voters - and for them, clear communication matters as much as the details of the law itself.

Two questions have now been researched: (1) Program costs - other states’ records put them in the single-digit to low-double-digit millions per state; and (2) Public trust - studies find that passing ID laws has not, by itself, raised it. Our Q4 | Solution builds on the first and answers the second with measurement.

The table below sums up the findings for each sub-claim.

Meaning ┃ Evidence ┃ Impact ┃Solution

Why Is This Claim True?

Welcome!

This section is the factual registry for Claim #04-003-002. Its focus is facts, not arguments: Every entry states one verifiable fact in a single sentence, cites the end source - the statute, court record, database, study, or dataset where the fact terminates - and identifies the sub-claim(s) it bears on.

Arguments and interpretations remain in Q1 - Meaning (Sections IX–X) and Q3 - Impact, cited to the parties who make them; no opinion piece is cited here as if it were a fact.

The three lanes - Evidence is numbered as follows:

• A-# | Affirming - facts a proponent would introduce to support this claim.

• D-# | Dissenting - facts an opponent would introduce to discredit this claim.

• N-# | Neutral- statutes, court holdings, official counts, polls, and facts both sides might introduce because it can be considered as both affirming and dissenting.

Evidence numbering

• Evidence numbers are permanent in our system - once assigned, a number is never reused or reassigned. New facts take the next available number in their lane.

• Sources can be repeatable - one source may support multiple entries in any lane.

• Every fact must include a link to the source; a fact that cannot be traced to a primary source does not enter the registry.

• Sub-claim tags use SC-1 through SC-6, matching Q1 - Meaning (full), Section II.

Known gap - Published polling from typically trustworthy sources test the photo-ID component only. We have not identified a poll testing this claim’s proposal to implement a two-factor process of identity confirmation.

Sub-claim key

• SC-1 preventable fraud occurs, is likely undercounted, and could affect a close election.

• SC-2 current safeguards are insufficient, and advances in digital technologies – including AI – are making them more so.

• SC-3 the two-factor requirement will reduce ineligible voting.

• SC-4 eligible voters would not be wrongly blocked.

• SC-5 the cost and effort are justified.

• SC-6 it can be implemented fairly and uniformly.

DISCLAIMER

Listing evidence in one of these three lanes does not mean we endorse it as true. We verify two things: The lane - Affirming, Dissenting, Neutral - and that each source states the fact we summarize. Upon close inspection, you may find the evidence claimed is strong, mixed, or weak.

It would imply bias for us to exclude perspectives that claim a reasonable factual basis, so we include the full breadth. However, in reality, studies rest on assumptions that can be biased; surveys are estimates, not full counts; and people on all sides of an issue do research with the intent to prove themselves right.

Follow the links and judge the evidence for yourself. We provide our conclusions in the Q3 - Impact and Q4 - Solution sections of an issue.

Affirming Facts (A)

A-1 | SC-1 - The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database documented 1,412 proven instances of election fraud as of January 2023, each ending in a criminal conviction, civil finding, or overturned election, and the database has continued to grow since.

Source: Heritage Election Fraud Database, electionfraud.heritage.org (Jan. 2023 update).

Links:

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/

Search: https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

1,412-case count: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/election-fraud-database-tops-1400-cases

A-2 | SC-1, SC-2 - Heritage states its database is a sampling, not a comprehensive count, because it cannot include fraud that goes undetected or unprosecuted.

Source: “About the Election Fraud Database.”

Links: https://electionfraud.heritage.org/about

https://www.heritage.org/article/about-the-election-fraud-database

A-3 | SC-1 - The 2018 election in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District was overturned and a new election ordered after a state investigation found an absentee-ballot trafficking operation run by political operative McCrae Dowless.

Source: North Carolina State Board of Elections order (Feb. 2019); Heritage database entry.

Links: Press release: https://www.ncsbe.gov/news/press-releases/2019/02/25/state-board-unanimously-orders-new-election-9th-congressional-district

Board order with findings: https://dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/Congressional_District_9_Portal/Order_03132019.pdf

A-4 | SC-1, SC-3 - A Florida man forged his deceased wife’s signature on a mail-ballot request form and was charged with vote-by-mail fraud after election staff caught the fraud during a routine voter-roll check.

Source: Heritage database entry and underlying court record (2021).

Links: https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-man-mail-in-ballot-dead-wife-voter-fraud-charge

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/florida-man-asked-for-mail-in-ballot-on-behalf-of-dead-wife-said-he-was-testing-if-voting-system-worked-deputies/

A-5 | SC-2 - A Minnesota voter who cast a ballot without identification - because an acquaintance vouched for her identity – later pleaded guilty to registering in more than one precinct.

Source: Heritage database entry and Minnesota court record.

Link: https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201659

Item 3 on Minnesota SOS Elections & Voting, Register on Election Day webpage: https://www.sos.mn.gov/elections-voting/register-to-vote/register-on-election-day/

A-6 | SC-1 - The Supreme Court in Crawford found the risk of voter fraud “real” and stated that it “could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Source: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/

A-7 | SC-1 (historical) - A federal investigation of Chicago’s 1982 election estimated roughly 100,000 fraudulent ballots were cast, producing dozens of convictions.

Source: U.S. Attorney investigation records, cited in Heritage, “Voter Fraud.”

Link: Database case entry: https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200224

Full documentation with primary-source footnotes: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-chicago

Overview (63 convictions): https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud

A-8 | SC-2 - A 2012 Pew study found approximately one in eight U.S. voter registrations was inaccurate, outdated, or duplicative, with about 1.8 million deceased individuals and nearly 3 million people registered in more than one state.

Source: Pew Center on the States, “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient” (Feb. 2012).

Link: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2012/02/14/inaccurate-costly-and-inefficient-evidence-that-americas-voter-registration-system-needs-an-upgrade

A-9 | SC-2 - Voter registration relies on self-attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury; election offices do not routinely verify citizenship against immigration databases at the point of registration.

Source: Bipartisan Policy Center, “Four Things to Know about Noncitizen Voting” (Feb. 2026).

Links: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/four-things-to-know-about-noncitizen-voting/

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

NVRA of 1993 (DOJ) - the law requiring the citizenship attestation under penalty of perjury: https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voter-registration-act-1993-nvra

USCIS SAVE agency search tool (documents the 23 states with SAVE agreements for citizenship verification): https://www.uscis.gov/save/about-save/save-agency-search-tool?type_of_agency%5B%5D=5&benefit_category%5B%5D=97&benefit_category%5B%5D=98&items_per_page=10

NCSL, “Legislative Approaches to Ensuring Only Citizens Vote” (jury-dismissal data as a verification source): https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/legislative-approaches-to-ensuring-only-citizens-vote

A-10 | SC-4, SC-5 - The Crawford Court held that the inconvenience of obtaining Indiana’s free photo ID did not impose a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote.

Source: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/

A-11 | SC-3, SC-6 - The bipartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, recommended a uniform photo-ID requirement paired with free IDs and affirmative state outreach.

Source: Carter-Baker Commission, “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections” (Sept. 2005).

Links: Original 2005 report (archived): https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/baker-carter-commission-2005-election-doc.pdf

Background: https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/carter-baker-commission-16-years-later

A-12 | SC-6 - A 2016 Brennan Center report by Myrna Perez identified Rhode Island’s and Michigan’s voter ID laws as examples that increased security without disenfranchising eligible voters.

Source: Brennan Center, “Election Integrity: A Pro-Voter Agenda” (2016).

Links: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/election-integrity-pro-voter-agenda (Can view, but PDF is behind a Scribd paywall.)

Referenced at: https://www.brennancenter.org/topics/voting-elections/voting-reform/voter-id

A-13 | SC-2 - In February 2024, journalists documented an underground service, OnlyFake, selling realistic fake-ID images for $15 – advertised as neural-network generated at up to 20,000 documents per day – including a fabricated California driver’s license, complete with a signature, that passed the automated identity check of a major cryptocurrency exchange.

Source: 404 Media, “Inside the Underground Site Where ‘Neural Networks’ Churn Out Fake IDs” (Feb. 2024), 404media.co. (Later forensic analysis questioned how much AI the service actually used; the cost, speed, and successful verification bypass are documented regardless.)

Links: https://www.404media.co/inside-the-underground-site-where-ai-neural-networks-churns-out-fake-ids-onlyfake/

AI-claim: https://resistant.ai/blog/onlyfake-generative-ai-fraud

A-14 | SC-2 - The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an alert in November 2024 reporting an increase in suspicious-activity filings describing deepfake media - including identity documents created or altered with generative AI – used to circumvent identity verification at financial institutions.

Source: FinCEN, Alert FIN-2024-Alert004 (Nov. 13, 2024), fincen.gov.

Links: Official alert PDF: https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FinCEN-Alert-DeepFakes-Alert508FINAL.pdf

Press release: https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-alert-fraud-schemes-involving-deepfake-media-targeting-financial

A-15 | SC-4 - A nationwide analysis of voter files from 2008–2018 found strict ID laws had no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any racial group.

Source: Cantoni & Pons, “Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters” (NBER Working Paper 25522, later published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics)

Link: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25522/w25522.pdf.

Dissenting Facts (D)

D-1 | SC-1 - A Brennan Center review of the Heritage database found only 10 cases of in-person impersonation at the polls – the fraud type polling-place photo ID addresses – across the billions of votes the database’s time span covers.

Source: Brennan Center, “Heritage Fraud Database: An Assessment” (2017).

Link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/analysis-heritage-foundations-database-undermines-claims-recent-voter

D-2 | SC-1 - The same review (D-1) found 41 cases of noncitizens registering, voting, or attempting to vote over roughly five decades.

Source: Brennan Center, “Heritage Fraud Database: An Assessment” (2017).

Link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/analysis-heritage-foundations-database-undermines-claims-recent-voter

D-3 | SC-4 - More than 49 million American adults do not possess an unexpired driver’s license bearing their current name and address.

Source: Brennan Center / University of Maryland CDCE national survey (2024), brennancenter.org. (Survey estimate, n=2,386, weighted.)

Links: Figure stated at: https://www.brennancenter.org/topics/voting-elections/voting-reform/voter-id

Survey data (Brennan/UMD CDCE, June 2024): https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20ID%202023%20survey%20Key%20Results%20June%202024%20updatev2.pdf

Weighted estimate from CDCE Survey data: https://cdce.umd.edu/feature/new-cdce-survey-shows-millions-lack-id-voter-id-laws-spread-more-states

D-4 | SC-4 - Approximately 11 percent of U.S. citizens in 2006 - about 21 million people - do not possess government-issued photo identification.

Source: Brennan Center survey, “Citizens Without Proof” (2006), cited in ACLU, “Oppose Voter ID Legislation – Fact Sheet.”

Links: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-without-proof

2006 Figures confirmed in 2011 post: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-without-proof-stands-strong

D-5 | SC-4 - The same survey found up to 25 percent of Black voting-age citizens lacked current government-issued photo ID, compared with about 8 percent of white voting-age citizens.

Source: Brennan Center, “Citizens Without Proof” (2006).

Links: New State Voting Laws: Barriers to the Ballot? (Sept. 28, 2011): https://brennancenter.org/analysis/new-state-voting-laws-barriers-ballot

2006 Figures confirmed in 2011 post: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-without-proof-stands-strong

D-6 | SC-4 - A federal court found that 608,470 registered Texas voters - approximately 4.5 percent - lacked identification qualifying under the state’s 2013 photo-ID law.

Source: Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014).

Links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914f18aadd7b0493497ba31

Finding recounted in GAO-14-634: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-634.pdf

D-7 | SC-4 - A Government Accountability Office study found turnout fell by an estimated two to three percentage points more in Kansas and Tennessee after those states adopted strict ID laws than in comparison states.

Source: GAO, “Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws,” GAO-14-634 (Sept. 2014).

Link: Footnote 101, page 70: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-634.pdf

D-8 | SC-4 - Strict voter ID laws taking effect after Crawford reduced presidential-election turnout by more than 2.5 percentage points, while laws passed earlier had negligible effects.

Source: Academic study in Brennan Center research compilation, “Research on Voter ID.” (Confirm author/journal at link before freeze.)

Link: Compilation with links to each underlying study: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/research-voter-id

D-9 | SC-4 - Stanford researchers found North Carolina’s strict ID law reduced turnout among voters lacking qualifying identification, and the effect persisted even after the law’s repeal.

Source: The Durable Differential Deterrent Effects of Strict Photo Identification Laws (Nov. 10, 2019). Published version of record (paywalled): Grimmer & Yoder, Political Science Research and Methods 10(3): 453–469 (2022), Cambridge Core

Link: Full text with methodology (Stanford Democracy & Polarization Lab): https://stanforddpl.org/papers/grimmer_yoder_2019_voterids/ or https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0qvfoisdch7yai6zoz8tq/voter_id_deter.pdf?rlkey=tkap0c10igy0jykmbhf5107vc&e=1&dl=0

D-10 | SC-4 - Texas voters who could vote only through the court-ordered Reasonable Impediment Declaration – lacking qualifying ID – were disproportionately Black and Latino.

Source: Jones, Cross & Granato, “The Texas Voter ID Law and the 2016 Election” (Apr. 2017).

Link: Full study PDF: https://www.uh.edu/hobby/voterid2016/voterid2016.pdf

D-11 | SC-4 - Administrative-records research in Michigan found voters of color were more likely than white voters to arrive at the polls without qualifying identification.

Source: Academic study in Brennan compilation (2022).

Link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/research-voter-id

D-12 | SC-4 - In Rhode Island, turnout declined among citizens without driver’s licenses after the state’s ID law took effect, and minority citizens were considerably less likely to hold licenses.

Source: Administrative-records study in Brennan compilation (2022).

Link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/research-voter-id

D-13 | SC-4, SC-6 - North Dakota’s requirement of a physical street address on qualifying ID excludes many tribal-land residents whose IDs list PO boxes.

Source: Brennan Center, “The Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of Color” (2022); related federal litigation.

Link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color

D-14 | SC-4, SC-5 - A Georgia federal court in October 2005 held the state’s photo-ID law an unconstitutional poll tax and undue burden, forcing the state to revise the law before a later version was upheld.

Source: Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2005).

Links: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/commong-cause-georgia-v-892777754

Ruling documented at: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/policy-brief-voter-identification

D-15 | SC-4 - Mail ballots cast by voters of color were rejected at higher rates than those of white voters in Georgia’s 2020 primary, with similar findings in Georgia’s and Florida’s 2018 general elections.

Source: Brennan Center research reports (2020); companion academic studies.

Link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color

D-16 | SC-4 - Signatures change with age, injury, stroke, and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, and some states require a physician’s attestation before accepting a ballot whose signature no longer matches the file.

Source: Michael J. Fox Foundation, “Know Your Rights: Voting by Mail and Signature Verification” (Oct. 2020).

Link: https://www.michaeljfox.org/news/know-your-rights-voting-mail-and-signature-verification

D-17 | SC-4, SC-5 - A Harvard Law School institute report calculated that obtaining a nominally free voter ID typically costs the individual $75 to $175 in underlying documents, travel, and time - between 7 and 136 times the inflation-adjusted poll tax outlawed in 1964.

Source: Richard Sobel, “The High Cost of ‘Free’ Photo Voter Identification Cards,” Charles Hamilton Houston Institute, Harvard Law School (2014).

Link: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/free-voter-ids-costly-harvard-law-report-finds

D-18 | SC-5 - Peer-reviewed research has found no consistent relationship between strict photo-ID laws and voter confidence: No correlation between ID requirements and beliefs about fraud frequency (2008), no evidence that passing strict ID laws reduced belief in fraud (2016), and no significant effect on citizens’ belief that elections were fair (2019) - with the strongest measured driver of confidence being whether the voter’s preferred candidate won.

Source: Ansolabehere & Persily, Harvard Law Review 121 (2008); Stewart, Ansolabehere & Persily, Stanford Law Review 68 (2016); Cantoni & Pons, NBER Working Paper 25522.

Links: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/ansolabehere_persily.pdf

Stanford Law Review (2016): https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/6_-_Persily_-_Stan._L._Rev.pdf

National study (NBER): https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25522/w25522.pdf

Summary (MIT Election Lab): https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-identification

Neutral Record (N)

N-1 | SC-2, SC-6 - As of October 2025, 36 states required identification at the polls – 24 of them photo ID, with exceptions – while 14 states generally required no ID on Election Day, and the 36 vary widely in accepted documents and no-ID procedures.

Source: Ballotpedia, “Voter identification laws by state” (Oct. 2025); Votebeat (Sept. 2025).

Links: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

NCSL Voter ID report: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id

N-2 | SC-2, SC-3 - Thirty-two states conduct signature verification on returned absentee/mail ballots.

Source: NCSL, “Table 14: How States Verify Voted Absentee/Mail Ballots” (2025).

Link: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots

N-3 | SC-2 - Ten states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands verify only that the ballot envelope is signed, without comparing the signature to the file.

Source: NCSL, Table 14 (2025).

Link: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots

N-4 | SC-2 - States without documentary ID requirements typically have voters sign a poll roster, mandate comparison of those signatures against registration records, and verbally confirm name and address.

Source: NCSL, “Voter Verification Without ID Documents” (2025).

Link: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-verification-without-id-documents

N-5 | SC-3, SC-6 - Some states verify mail ballots by alternative methods – a copy of an identification document, a witness signature, or notarization – rather than signature comparison.

Source: NCSL, Table 14 (2025).

Link: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots

N-6 | SC-4, SC-6 - States with signature verification maintain cure processes allowing voters to correct a rejected signature, with windows and methods varying by state.

Source: NCSL, “Table 15: States with Signature Cure Processes” (2025).

Link: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-15-states-with-signature-cure-processes

N-7 | SC-6 - In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s strict photo-ID law in 2008, and the decision remains the controlling precedent for photo-ID statutes.

Source: 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/

N-8 | SC-4, SC-6 - Indiana’s law requires a government-issued photo ID whose name conforms to the registration record, provides free state IDs, and gives provisional voters ten days to present valid ID.

Source: Indiana Code; Indiana Secretary of State, in.gov/sos/elections.

Links: https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/voter-information/photo-id-law/

Statute confirmed in NCSL Voter ID report: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id

Ten-day cure rule in Crawford: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/

N-9 | SC-2 - The Help America Vote Act requires identification only from first-time voters who registered by mail, and accepts a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or other government document as alternatives to photo ID.

Source: 52 U.S.C. § 21083 (HAVA § 303).

Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/21083

N-10 | SC-6 - The Elections Clause assigns the times, places, and manner of congressional elections to state legislatures subject to congressional override, and Article II assigns the manner of appointing presidential electors to state legislatures.

Source: U.S. Const. art. I, § 4; art. II, § 1.

Links: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/

N-11 | SC-5 - Gallup found in October 2024 that 84 percent of U.S. adults favored requiring photo identification at the voting place, including 98 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of independents, and 67 percent of Democrats.

Source: Gallup (Oct. 2024). (Survey estimate, weighted.)

Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx

N-12 | SC-5 - Pew Research Center found in August 2025 that 83 percent of U.S. adults favored requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.

Source: Pew Research Center (Aug. 2025). (Survey estimate, weighted.)

Link: Via fact brief linking the Pew data: https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/voter-id-americans-support-wisconsin-poll-photo-identification/

Corroborating coverage: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/americans-support-photo-id-vote-democrats-oppose-save-america-act-rcna259549

N-13 | SC-5 - Rasmussen Reports found in January 2025 that 77 percent of likely voters called requiring photo ID to vote a reasonable election-integrity measure.

Source: Rasmussen Reports (Jan. 2025). (Survey estimate, n=1,229 likely voters, ±3 points, weighted.)

Link: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration_second_term/election_integrity_77_favor_voter_id

Linked from: https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/voter-id-americans-support-wisconsin-poll-photo-identification/

N-14 | SC-2 - Federal law since 1996 has explicitly prohibited noncitizens from voting in federal elections, with penalties including imprisonment and deportation.

Source: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; 18 U.S.C. § 611.

Links: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611

Official public law PDF, IIRIRA, Pub. L. 104-208 (fine and up to one year imprisonment): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

8 U.S.C. § 1182 - deportability/inadmissibility for unlawful voting and for falsely claiming citizenship: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

N-15 | SC-2 - No state allows noncitizens to vote in statewide elections; the District of Columbia and certain municipalities in California, Maryland, and Vermont allow noncitizen voting in some local elections.

Source: Ballotpedia, “Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States” (Mar. 2026); Bipartisan Policy Center (Feb. 2026).

Links: https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/four-things-to-know-about-noncitizen-voting/

San Francisco school board voting: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/09/noncitizen-voting-school-board-san-francisco/

Oakland Measure S (2022): https://ballotpedia.org/Oakland,_California,_Measure_S,_Noncitizen_Residents_Voting_Measure_(November_2022) - with implementation status: https://oaklandside.org/2024/11/01/measure-s-noncitizen-voting-oakland-school-board-election/

Maryland/Vermont municipalities (anchor-specific version of your existing Ballotpedia link): https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States#Details_about_noncitizen_voting_in_local_elections

DC Law 24-242 (the actual statute): https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-242

Separate-ballot safeguard in Maryland cities (NPR): https://www.npr.org/local/305/2022/11/09/1135568975/it-feels-very-welcoming-non-citizen-immigrants-on-voting-in-takoma-park

N-16 | SC-6 - New York City’s 2021 law extending local voting to noncitizens was struck down under the state constitution, a ruling the New York Court of Appeals affirmed 6–1 in March 2025.

Source: New York Court of Appeals decision (Mar. 2025); FindLaw (Mar. 2026).

Links: Fossella v. Adams (N.Y. Ct. App., Mar. 20, 2025) documented at: https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-voting-guide/can-noncitizens-vote-in-the-united-states.html

The 2022 trial-court ruling that started it (CNN): https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics/noncitizen-voting-new-york/index.html - your entry’s fact is the 2025 Court of Appeals affirmance; this documents the lower-court stage.

N-17 | SC-5 - From 2018 through 2025, voters approved all 15 statewide constitutional amendments strengthening citizenship requirements for voting, averaging 73 percent support, and six more citizenship measures are on 2026 ballots, including Los Angeles’s November 2026 measure on local noncitizen voting.

Source: Ballotpedia News (July 2026); Spectrum News (June 2026).

Links: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/08/six-citizenship-voting-measures-on-the-ballot-in-2026-continue-historical-trend/

LA measure: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/ca/california/politics/2026/06/19/los-angeles-non-citizen-voting

N-18 | SC-6 - The SAVE Act, requiring documentary proof of citizenship at voter registration, passed the U.S. House and was pending in the Senate as of early 2026.

Source: Congress.gov, H.R. 22 (119th Congress).

Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22

N-19 | SC-4, SC-6 - A March 2025 executive order directed proof of citizenship on the federal registration form, listing passports and citizenship-designating IDs but not birth certificates as acceptable, while roughly half of Americans hold passports; nineteen states sued, courts blocked its major provisions during 2025, and in January 2026 a federal judge permanently blocked the order, finding the president lacks authority to unilaterally alter election procedures.

Source: Executive Order (Mar. 25, 2025); NBC News (Mar. 2025); TIME (Aug. 2025); NBC News (Feb. 2026); U.S. State Department passport data.

Links: Official text: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/28/2025-05523/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/

Litigation status (CRS): https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11368

Litigation history (19 states, 2025 injunctions): https://time.com/7313626/trump-voter-id-executive-order/

January 2026 permanent block: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-vows-voter-id-requirements-midterms-rcna259018

N-20 | SC-1, SC-2 - Georgia’s October 2024 citizenship audit of 8.2 million registered voters identified 20 noncitizen registrations, of whom nine had voted, most before the state’s 2012 verification upgrade.

Source: Georgia Secretary of State announcement (Oct. 2024), via Bipartisan Policy Center.

Links: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/four-things-to-know-about-noncitizen-voting/

The Georgia Recorder report of Raffensperger’s announcement, with the 20-registered/9-voted figures: https://georgiarecorder.com/briefs/georgia-gop-secretary-of-state-reports-audit-found-20-noncitizens-registered-to-vote-out-of-8-2m/

N-21 | SC-1, SC-2 - Utah’s 2025–26 review of more than two million voter registrations found one confirmed noncitizen registration and zero noncitizen votes.

Source: Utah state review (Jan. 2026), via Bipartisan Policy Center.

Links: State of Utah Citizenship Review Process, January 22, 2026: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CNkU8qcrIQ-vYUaE4OyCBqydk5toZAR9/view

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/four-things-to-know-about-noncitizen-voting/

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/utah-reviewed-its-voter-rolls-for-noncitizens/

N-22 | SC-1 - A Bipartisan Policy Center review of the Heritage database identified 77 instances of noncitizens successfully casting ballots between 1999 and 2023.

Source: Bipartisan Policy Center, “Four Things to Know about Noncitizen Voting” (Feb. 2026).

Links: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/four-things-to-know-about-noncitizen-voting/

77 noncitizen voting instances: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=citizen&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=All - NOTE: The article’s footnote 2 gives BPC’s full methodology (scraped Oct. 11, 2024; queries “citizen” and “alien”; manual review to 77)

N-23 | SC-1, SC-2 - Ohio’s Secretary of State flagged 521 potential noncitizen voting cases between 2019 and September 2023, but a journalistic review found only one resulted in a voter-fraud charge, with most flags traced to clerical errors and DMV lag in recording naturalizations.

Source: Ohio Capital Journal, “Ohio Sec. of State LaRose flagged more than 520 cases of noncitizen voter fraud. Only one was legit” (Sept. 27, 2023).

Link: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/09/27/ohio-sec-of-state-larose-flagged-more-than-520-cases-of-noncitizen-voter-fraud-only-one-was-legit/

N-24 | SC-6 - President Trump announced in August 2025 that he would sign an executive order requiring voter ID in all elections nationwide, and renewed the vow in February 2026 - “whether approved by Congress or not” - after the SAVE America Act passed the House; as of this writing, no such order has issued, and a federal court struck down the voter-ID portions of his earlier March 2025 election order as beyond presidential authority.

Source: Fox News (Aug. 30, 2025); Votebeat news analysis (Sept. 8, 2025); NBC News (Feb. 13, 2026).

Links: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-he-require-voter-id-executive-order

Implementation-complexity analysis: https://www.votebeat.org/2025/09/08/trump-executive-order-voter-id-requirement-emergency-power/

February renewal: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-vows-voter-id-requirements-midterms-rcna259018

N-25 | SC-3, SC-6 - Election officials verifying signatures commonly compare the ballot signature against multiple signatures on file - the registration record, prior ballot envelopes, motor-vehicle transactions - so they can account for the evolution of a voter’s handwriting, and best practice pairs verification with prompt notification and a cure process when a signature is rejected.

Source: National Vote at Home Institute, “Increasing Signature Verification.”

Links: https://voteathome.org/signature-verification/

Stanford Law School report: https://voteathome.org/portfolio/stanford-law-school-report-signature-verification-and-mail-ballots-guaranteeing-access-while-preserving-integrity/

N-26 | SC-1, SC-2 - A software flaw in New Jersey’s motor-vehicle system registered roughly 6,600 noncitizens to vote between June 2023 and June 2024 - enrolling applicants even though they answered “no” to the citizenship question - and a preliminary state review found about 400 cast ballots in 2023-2024 elections, with no evidence any race was swayed; the error took a year to fix, was not disclosed until July 2026, and those registered remained on the rolls up to three years before removal began.

Source: Gov. Sherrill announcement (July 21, 2026); NBC News; New Jersey Monitor; WHYY; CBS New York (July 2026). NOTE: Responsibility is contested - the vendor says the state Division of Elections is responsible for verifying eligibility - and a DOJ investigation is open; figures may change.

Links: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/6600-noncitizens-registered-vote-nj-software-error-governor-says-rcna588524

Governor’s press conference: https://newjerseymonitor.com/2026/07/21/governor-software-error-non-citizens-register-vote/

How the glitch occurred: https://whyy.org/articles/new-jersey-motor-vehicle-commission-glitch-noncitizens-registered-vote/

Vendor dispute and DOJ demand: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-jersey-noncitizen-voting-mikie-sherrill-department-of-justice/

N-27 | SC-1, SC-2 - Oregon’s motor-voter system mistakenly registered more than 1,600 people who had not provided proof of citizenship, an error discovered in 2024 and traced to DMV staff mis-selecting document types; state reviews found about 17 of them had voting histories - several legally, having become citizens before voting - with roughly 9 potentially ineligible, and the governor paused automatic registration until an independent audit produced new rules in 2026.

Source: Oregon Secretary of State newsroom (Sept. 2024); AP (Sept. 30, 2024); KOIN (Feb. 2026).

Links: https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/SOS/Posts/Post/dmv-potential-ineligible-voters-improper-registration-records

AP report: https://wreg.com/news/your-voice-your-vote/ap-politics/ap-oregon-dmv-waited-weeks-to-tell-elections-officials-about-voter-registration-error/

Audit and 2026 rule changes: https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/oregon-motor-voter-program-updated-after-1k-people-mistakenly-registered-to-vote/

N-28 | SC-5 - Indiana’s photo-ID law cost about $12.2 million over its first four years - including more than $1.3 million to produce 168,000+ free IDs, nearly $2.2 million in lost card-fee revenue, and $2.2 million in voter education - roughly equal to the state Elections Division’s entire annual budget at the time.

Source: Brennan Center, “The Cost of Voter ID Laws: What the Courts Say” (2011), citing Indiana state estimates; Keystone Research Center (2011).

Links: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Democracy/Voter%20ID%20Cost%20Memo%20FINAL.pdf

Keystone Research Center analysis: https://keystoneresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Cost-of-Voter-ID-Law-to-PA.pdf

N-29 | SC-5 - Official fiscal notes and independent estimates for other states’ voter-ID laws ranged from about $720,000 plus $260,000 recurring (South Carolina) to $5.7 million (Wisconsin), $6 million in year one plus $4 million annually (Missouri), and $18-25 million over three years (North Carolina), with voter-education spending varying from $0.15 to $1.37 per voter.

Source: Brennan Center cost memo and state updates (2011); Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Links: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/update-voter-id-costs-states

Cost memo (PDF): https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Democracy/Voter%20ID%20Cost%20Memo%20FINAL.pdf

Education-cost figures: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/truth-about-voter-id-costs

Sub-Claim Cross-Reference Matrix

Legend:

• Built from the sub-claim tags in the registry.

• Three dashes means no direct factual entry in that lane, although indirect facts may be presented in other sub-claims.

• Number in parenthesis indicates number of links for that Evidence number. For instance, A-1 (3) means three links to facts support A-1.

Source Index

Alphabetical list of all sources cited in the registry. Sources are unnumbered; the permanent IDs belong to facts, not sources.

404 Media · ACLU · Ballotpedia / Ballotpedia News · Bipartisan Policy Center · Brennan Center for Justice · Carter-Baker Commission · Charles Hamilton Houston Institute (Harvard Law School) · Congress.gov · Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups (N.D. Ga. 2005) · Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (U.S. 2008) · FinCEN (U.S. Treasury) · Gallup · GAO · Georgia Secretary of State · Harvard Law Review · Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database · Indiana Code / Indiana Secretary of State · Jones, Cross & Granato (Univ. of Houston) · Keystone Research Center · Michael J. Fox Foundation · MIT Election Lab · NBC News · NBER (Cantoni & Pons) · NCSL · North Carolina State Board of Elections · Pew Center on the States · Pew Research Center · Rasmussen Reports · Spectrum News · Stanford Law Review · U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 611; 52 U.S.C. § 21083) · U.S. Constitution · Utah state election review · Veasey v. Perry (S.D. Tex. 2014) · Votebeat · White House (Executive Order, Mar. 2025) · Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau

Meaning ┃ Evidence ┃ Impact ┃Solution