The last federal election I recall working at the polls was on November 8, 2016. I was assigned to Los Feliz, often frequented by actors and musicians who lived in the lush hills above the neighborhood. I remember one particular actor from The Big Bang Theory who kept asking me if I really did not recognize him after I asked for his name. At the time, he was more of an annoyance as the line stretched out of the building and around the corner, and no, I had no idea who he was. Even after another volunteer whispered to me who he was, I just shrugged. He would still have to identify himself. I did not ask him for an identification card, which would have been illegal in California at the time. I asked for his name so I could locate him in the poll book for him to sign.
![]() |
| Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, California |
California has since modernized its polling place operations, but not in any meaningful way. And it is not just California. Among China, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Russia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Poland, Taiwan, Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, Israel, Argentina, Singapore, Austria, UAE, Norway, Thailand, Colombia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Bangladesh, Denmark, Romania, South Africa, Hong Kong, Czech Republic, Egypt, Chile, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Finland, the United States remains the only nation that still relies primarily on self-attestation without integrated national verification of voter eligibility.
The 47 nations and jurisdictions listed generally ensure voter eligibility through centralized national ID systems, civil or population registries, citizenship databases, biometric voter rolls, and government-linked electoral registers that verify identity and legal voting status before or during registration. Many also require national identification cards, passports, or voter cards at the polling station to confirm the voter matches the registered electoral record. So, is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act) in the Senate unreasonable?
I remember people showing up at polling places not knowing they had to register, unsure whether they had registered, uncertain which name they registered under, unable to confirm the address they used to register, or confused about whether they had already voted by mail. As a volunteer poll worker, I confess that I questioned the system. You can have multiple names or be in the process of legally changing your name, but how do you not know which name you used to register to vote? How do you not know which address you used? Who stops the volunteer poll worker who insists on giving a ballot to a voter who already received a mail-in ballot but did not surrender it because that voter happens to be her neighbor and does not want a provisional ballot? Everything Republicans claim could've happened. I can see how they could've easily happened.
Fourteen states, including California, don't even require identification at polling places. Our election process is basically an honor system, self-attestation without verification of eligibility. We have to provide proof of our legal residence to our employers with government-issued documentation and identification to meet I-9 requirements. We have to show proof of identification each time we fly. Yet, those who oppose the SAVE Act claim that it will hinder access to voting. Will it be an inconvenience to some? Will it require old-fashioned caravan programs to get eligible voters to register in person?
We are a nation of 340 million people, not all eligible to vote. We consider ourselves a leader, advanced compared to the world, yet our national elections are run like an honor system at a kindergarten. You must be eligible because you said so. If that doesn't sound like a disaster in the making, you must not have had enough coffee.
_____
More essays:

Comments
Post a Comment